Latest Ruling in Mahmoud Case Raises Citizen Rights Concern

Update on Mahmoud Khalil’s Case

On April 11, 2025, the court held that the government established by clear and convincing evidence that Mahmoud is removable. The attorneys for Mahmoud criticized the hearing’s fairness. Much is left to speculation because the court did not delineate the evidence it weighed in making this determination.

If the court simply based its decision on a memorandum from the Secretary of State, this raises serious concerns. The government is using INA section 237(a)(4)(C), a rarely used law from the Cold-War Era to deport Mahmoud.

The law requires that the government present clear and convincing evidence that Mahmoud’s presence or activities would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the government. The law also allows the government to proceed if the Secretary of State personally determines that an undocumented person’s admission would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.

Based on the ruling, it would appear that the Judge found that Mahmoud engaging in protected speech and expressing anti-war sentiments had serious adverse foreign policy consequences and that Mahmoud compromised a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest based on the Secretary of State’s personally making this determination.

The question is “what evidence was presented to make these findings”? The law requires evidence that Mahmoud’s actions caused the government serious adverse foreign policy consequences and that a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest was compromised.

Based on the information that has so far been presented against Mahmoud, he engaged in protected speech and there is no evidence that this actions had serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the government or that his actions compromised a compelling foreign policy interest. This ruling gives way to subjective government intrusion of constitutional rights.

Although INA section 237(a)(4)(C) does not apply to U.S. citizens, this ruling opens the door to the creation and/or application of similar laws applicable to U.S. citizens that would obviously not make them deportable but would criminalize protected speech.

Although anti-war and political speech protections are well-established, this case should be a warning to U.S. citizens because it was also well-established that legal permanent residents’ anti-war and political speech fell under this well-established protection. The ruling opens the door to political persecution that would only require the Secretary of State to “personally” make a finding that the speech compromises a compelling foreign policy interest.

This ruling will be appealed by Mahmoud’s attorneys to the Board of Immigration Appeals. He also has a pending case challenging the legality of his detention. Nonetheless, this latest ruling raises concerns about the limits of the government.