New Jersey District Court Judge Michael Farbiarz placed a temporary block on President Donald Trump’s administration’s plan to deport Mahmoud Khalil.
The defendants have until June 13 to seek appellate review.
Also, Farbiaz’s injunction won’t “go into effect unless and until the Petitioner posts a nominal bond in the amount of $1.”
Yes…$1.
“The Respondents are preliminarily enjoined from seeking to remove the Petitioner from the United States based on the Secretary of State’s determination,” wrote Farbiaz.
Khalil managed to convince Farbiaz that his continued detention has caused “irreparable harm to his career, his family and his free speech rights.”
DHS attorneys claimed “Khalil misrepresented himself on his green card application.”
They accused him of not disclosing “his employment with the Syrian office in the British Embassy in Beirut” on purpose, working for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, and membership in Columbia University’s Apartheid Divest.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio justified Khalil’s removal by citing the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, which says an alien can be deported if the secretary “has reasonable ground to believe that the alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
Rubio determined that Khalil’s activities and presence could cause consequences due to his participation “in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities, which fosters a hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”
What really gets me is that Farbiarz seems to have bought the “free speech” argument from Khalil…even though he started and led the vile antisemitic “protests” at Columbia.
Farbiarz found that Khalil met the public interest standard with a quote from another case, “[T]he public has no interest in the enforcement of what is very likely an unconstitutional statute.”
Insanity:
And on the other side of the ledger, there is a chilling effect on speech. See Amalgamated Transit Union Loc. 85, 39 F.4th at 109 (“There is a strong public interest in upholding the requirements of the First Amendment. And, if a plaintiff demonstrates both a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, it almost always will be the case that the public interest will favor the plaintiff.”) (cleaned up).
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY