Khalil's Right
“A bird cage for protest, vodka, nesting doll
Jail for the Bolotnaya, drinks, caviar
The Constitution is in a noose, Vitishko is in jail
Stability, food packets, fence, watch tower
The verdict for Russia is jail for six years
Putin will teach you to love the Motherland”
Mahmoud Khalil Speaking to the Media on April 25, 2024 at Columbia University
Mahmoud Khalil Speaking to the Media on April 25, 2024 at Columbia University
Even the most ardent Zionist had reason to attend this afternoon’s rally in Federal Plaza, where pro-Palestinian demonstrators once again demanded justice for the Palestinian people. The rally’s impetus was the arrest Sunday night of Mahmoud Khalil, a student who completed work on his master’s degree three months ago at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs. Mr. Khalil was among those who orchestrated the Columbia University protests and student encampment last year.
Raising critical issues surrounding the First Amendment and the right-to-legal counsel, Khalil’s should disturb every American regardless of whether they are pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian. While many may find Khalil’s views distasteful, everyone should recognize that in Trump’s America, the right to speak and seek legal counsel may be shredded if the Trump Administration prevails in its effort to deport Khalil..
The Stakes. Trump labels anyone objecting to Israel’s disproportionate response to the Hamas October 7th attacks as an anti-semite and terrorist. Those prejudicial and inflammatory characterizations are intended to delegitimize First Amendment activity. Mr. Khalil’s arrest by ICE agents was sparked by such characterizations—the same ones underlying Trump’s plans to deport other foreign students who speak on behalf of the Palestinian people.
While Khalil was arrested in New York, he was transported to the LaSalle Detention Center in Louisiana as part of Trump’s ongoing effort to deny those who disagree with him access to legal representation. The ICE agents permitted Khalil to call his lawyer, Amy Greer, from the lobby of his New York City apartment building before being led away. One of the agents informed Greer that the State Department had revoked Khalil’s student visa. Responding, Greer informed the agent that Khalil didn’t have a student visa. He is a permanent resident alien holding a Green Card. So much for the facts, which based on what is presently known, don’t readily support Khalil’s expulsion from the country.
During the Spring of 2024, Khalil served as a negotiator for the students in talks with Columbia’s Administration. On at least two occasions, students were arrested in mass, but Khalil never was arrested or criminally charged with any offense related to the protests.
When interviewed by CNN at the height of the protests, Khalil told CNN,
As a Palestinian student, I believe that the liberation of the Palestinian people and the Jewish people are intertwined and go hand-by-hand, and you cannot achieve one without the other . . . Our movement is a movement for social justice and freedom and equality for everyone . . .
Mr. Khalil words counter allegations that he is anti-semitic, although Khalil admittedly could simply be a media savvy spokesperson. Both Trump and American Jews whose views align with the Israeli far-right extremists continue conflating anti-semitism and opposition to Israel’s ethnic cleansing efforts.
At this time, the basis for Khalil’s detention is anything but clear. According to Georgetown University Professor Steve Vladeck in a March 10, 2025 post, the government likely is relying on two statutes in support of its action—8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(4)(C), which provides, “An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable;” and 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(VII), which provides, that an alien is deportable if he “endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization.”
Section 1227(a)(4)(C) was added to the law as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. At that time, the Second Red Scare (1947-1957) was reaching its zenith. Now disgraced Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy led hearings throughout 1953 and 1954 that eventually resulted in censure by his Senate colleagues. His legal counsel at the time was Roy Cohn, the man who would become Donald Trump’s mentor, schooling Trump in how to abuse the legal system for personal benefit. The irony should not be lost on anyone: the Trump Administration is now using a McCarthy-era statutory relic to once again suppress free expression.
Does organizing demonstrations opposing U.S. policy potentially have serious adverse foreign policy consequences? Did Khalil’s efforts espouse terrorist activity or persuade others to engage in such activity? To date, I have not seen any evidence supporting expulsion under the statutory language. While the encampment was in place, Khalil told the BBC that he did not engage directly in the encampment activity because he was worried about revocation of his student visa—as noted, he has since obtained permanent resident status.
Columbia University temporarily suspended Khalil during the protests, but he told the BBC that the university then rescinded the suspension, informing Khalil that after reviewing the evidence, “they don’t have any evidence to suspend (me).” Quotation attributed to Khalil, not the university.
If Khalil has correctly recounted the facts, the Trump Administration apparently is seeking to deport Khalil based on his viewpoint, a clear violation of his First Amendment rights. As a baseline matter, the First Amendment does not expressly limit its benefits to “citizens.” In the past, resident aliens have successfully invoked its protections.
But despite the First Amendment’s seemingly expansive breath, the intersection of immigration law and the First Amendment does produce legal uncertainty, as Professor Vladeck has pointed out. Other than noting the issue, I will refrain from discussing the nuances; instead referring interested readers to Vladeck’s post.
The Trump Administration’s approach, whether legal or not, clashes with First Amendment values. Trump continues to be his own worst enemy, with his inflammatory posts revealing how pretextual his Administration’s efforts are when it comes to undercutting First Amendment values. Specifically, yesterday on Truth Social, Trump wrote:
Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University, This is the first arrest of many to come. We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it. Many are not students; they are paid agitators.
The official White House X account then sarcastically tweeted, “SHALOM, MAHMOUD,” thereby reflecting Trump’s animosity toward Muslims. Trump provided no evidence that Khalil is radical, pro-Hamas, anti-American, anti-Semitic, or a paid agitator.
Last week, the Trump Administration announced that it had canceled $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University because the university did not shut down the protests or the encampment. It also announced that it is investigating other universities, including Northwestern, on similar grounds. Cutting funding and conducting investigations represent rather transparent efforts to chill First Amendment activity by effectively deputizing university administrators as Tump’s enforcers. ‘Shut the demonstrations down if you want Federal money.’ In today’s Wall Street Journal, Douglas Belkin penned an article describing the war that has erupted on the Columbia University campus, one that pits research scientists who receive Federal grants against humanities faculty members who don’t. It is symptomatic of the pressure being exerted by Trump.
Trump and others have alleged that Jewish students on Columbia’s campus were threatened and harassed. I certainly wasn’t on campus for the full duration of the protests, but I can offer one revealing anecdote. The encampment took up a significant amount of space in the school’s quad, but one afternoon just to the north of the encampment, I saw pro-israeli students creating a display that included the signature Israeli “Kidnapped” posters. The students also planted small Israeli flags in a nearby grassy area. I assumed the display would be vandalized that night, but the next day when I returned, it was fully intact and untouched. For my commentary and images from my visit to Columbia University’s campus, click here.
Kahlil’s hurried transfer to Louisiana is also consistent with Trump’s other affronts to the judicial system. In Kahlil’s case, denying him the right to adequate legal representation by putting over 1,100 miles between him and his legal counsel.
Trump has also been attacking large law firms. On March 6, 2025, he issued an executive order revoking the security clearances of lawyers who work for Perkins Coie, a large law firm whose offense seems to have been representing Hillary Clinton, working with George Soros, and implanting DEI policies. Trump also requested that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission commence an investigation of “large law firms as described in subsection (a) of this section who do business with Federal entities for compliance with race-based and sex-based non-discrimination laws.” Finally, Trump barred Perkins Coie’s lawyers from entering Federal buildings, which presumably include Federal courthouses.
On February 25th, Trump signed a memorandum suspending Peter Koski’s national security clearance for his representation of Special Counsel Jack Smith. Koski is a partner with Covington & Burling LLP, a Washington, D.C. legal powerhouse.
In a Sunday night interview, Trump told Fox News, “We have a lot of law firms that we’re going to be going after because they were very dishonest people.” In a recent New York Times Dealbook column, Andrew Ross Sorkin summarized the impact that Trump’s efforts are producing,
The White House moves have sent a chill through the world of Big Law, at a time when litigation has emerged as one of the few checks on the president.
In private conversations, partners at some of the nation’s leading firms have expressed outrage at the president’s actions. What they haven’t been willing to do is say so publicly. Back-channel efforts to persuade major law firms to sign public statements criticizing Trump’s actions thus far have foundered, in part because of retaliation fears, people familiar with the matter said.
Advocacy groups and smaller law firms say it has been more difficult to recruit larger firms to help with cases against Trump, which now number more than 100.…
Anyone who believes the conservative Cato Institute must be in Trump’s pocket will be surprised to learn that it has taken a stand in opposition to Trump’s attacks on lawyers.
While the Trump Administration’s efforts to undercut Khalil’s access to legal representation may be directed toward the client, Trump’s efforts, whether directed at lawyers or clients, have only one aim: To effectively deny people who disagree with Trump or who Trump doesn’t like a fundamental right— the right to counsel. If that means destroying law firms, so be it.
To conclude, those demonstrating today may have viewed themselves as standing up for Khalil and the Palestinian people, but far more is at stake. Specifically, the right to legal counsel and the right of free expression.
The Demonstration. Today’s demonstration followed the formula that governs pro-Palestinian demonstrations. Endless speeches and chants, used as a stalling tactic so that the rally’s headcount grows as latecomers continue to arrive. Once critical mass has been achieved, the demonstrators take to the streets for a march. For anyone who doubts my assessment: late in the program, I saw one of the speakers who had led countless chants look to the lead organizers for permission to end the chants. The organizers signaled back, “Continue leading the chants,” at least that was my read of the body language.
Shortly after the demonstration ended, one of the local newspapers reported the crowd size at 250 people. After reviewing my images, I am inclined to put the number at somewhere between 150 and 200 people. Given the stakes, the demonstration was poorly attended. I will be interested to see whether there is a second demonstration this weekend.
Possible Change in CPD Policy. Last Saturday during the rally at Jane Byrne Plaza following the earlier International Women’s Day rally and march to Trump Tower, one of the organizers told those assembled that the Chicago Police Department threatened the demonstrators with arrest if they marched in the street from Upper Wacker Drive to Jane Byrne Plaza, which would have closed down the southbound lanes of Michigan Avenue. The organizer then noted that the prior Sunday, CPD had permitted members of Chicago’s Ukrainian Community and their supporters to march in the southbound lanes of Michigan Avenue.
Today, as the demonstrators who had assembled in Federal Plaza streamed onto Adams Street, CPD’s bicycle brigade blocked the roadway, preventing the demonstrators from from marching west on Adams, and then south on Clark to ICE’s Chicago headquarters. I stood behind some orange street barriers, hoping to avoid arrest should the street explode.
One veteran demonstrator told me that someone had suggested flanking the police by first swarming the sidewalks, and then rushing into the street behind the police line. He didn’t think that was a good idea. Whoever was in charge must have agreed, assuming the person knew about it. The fact that one demonstrator considered the possibility aptly explains how well-intentioned organizers can lose control to less disciplined demonstrators.
Fortunately, there were no arrests. Relenting after the 20- to 30-minute standoff, CPD did permit the demonstrators to march, first heading down Clark, finding themselves within eyesight of the ICE offices, and then returning to Federal Plaza by heading north on Dearborn. Demonstration over.
But one question still lingers: Is the City of Chicago trying to curb demonstrations that shut down streets? Only time will tell, but so far, if there has been a change in policy, it has been largely unsuccessful. Like today, a week ago CPD relented, permitting those demonstrating against Elon Musk to march in the streets from Jane Byrne Plaza to the Gold Coast Tesla store.
[Click on an Image to Enlarge It. The Images Are Not Necessarily in Exact Chronological Order]
Unboxed, and Ready to Go
The RevComs Are Out Today
Me Taking Photos of Them Taking Photos
Demanding Khalil's Freedom
"Resist"
"Stop Trump's Racist Agenda"
Speaking on Behalf of Democracy
Pacing as She Speaks
That Pretty Much Sums It All Up
A Message that Is Sure to Be Heard
“Not for Sale”
Only They Know Today's Plan
Frozen in Place for Only a Second
With Passion
Honoring Their Religious Traditions During Ramadan
Not Fans of Trump's Border Wall
"Solidarity Is Not a Crime"
From the Speaker's Prospective
Not Quite a Kettle
Got the Picture
Standing Their Ground
A Tense Standoff Brought About by an Apparent Change iin CPD Policy
A Hand on the Back as He Seemingly Communicates the Audible Allowing the Demonstrators to March
CPD Relents
Looking at the Some of the Leadership as He Passes By
Looking at the Photographer
Access Northward on LaSalle Denied
Rounding the Corner Onto Adams
Coming Toward Me
Headed Toward ICE Headquarters
Starting Them Young
"FRSO"
A Train Passing By as the Marchers Head Toward ICE's Chicago Headquarters
Enraged
The Despised ICE Chicago Headquarters
"Dear U.S. Government . . ."
From the Backside
"Free Speech; Free Mahmoud Khalil"
Passing Dunkin'
Flanking the Demonstrators
Returning to Federal Plaza
Returning to the Starting Point
Putin Will Teach You How to Love the Motherland, Pussy Riot.
Copyright 2025, Jack B. Siegel (except the first two images in the post, which are copyrighted 2024). All Rights Reserved. Do Not Alter, Copy, Display, Distribute, Download, Duplicate, or Reproduce Without the Prior Written Consent of the Copyright Holder.
