Connect with us

World

US judge says effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil likely unconstitutional

Published

on

US judge says effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil likely unconstitutional

A United States federal judge has said that an effort by the administration of President Donald Trump to deport pro-Palestine student activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional.

District Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey wrote on Wednesday that the government’s claim that Khalil constituted a threat to US national security and foreign policy was not likely to succeed.

“Would an ordinary person have a sense that he could be removed from the United States because he ‘compromise[d]’ American ‘foreign policy interests’ — that is, because he compromised US relations with other countries — when the Secretary has not determined that his actions impacted US relations with a foreign country?” Farbiarz wrote. “Probably not.”

Farbiarz did not immediately rule on the question of whether Khalil’s First Amendment rights to free speech were violated. He also did not order Khalil’s immediate release, citing unanswered questions about his permanent residency application.

The judge is expected to order further steps in the coming days.

Advertisement

 

A ruling against the government would be the latest legal setback for the Trump administration’s controversial efforts to crack down on pro-Palestine activism across the US in the name of national security and combating anti-Semitism.

But critics have accused the Trump administration of violating basic constitutional rights in its efforts to do so.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the US, was the first high-profile arrest made in the Trump administration’s push to expel student protesters involved in demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza.

A former graduate student, Khalil had served as a spokesperson for the antiwar protests at Columbia University. But on March 8, the 30-year-old was arrested in the hall of his student housing building in New York City, while his wife, Dr Noor Abdalla, filmed the incident.

Advertisement

He was then transferred from a detention centre in New Jersey to one in Jena, Louisiana, while his lawyers struggled to ascertain his location. He remains imprisoned in the Jena facility while the US government seeks his deportation.

In public statements, Khalil has said that his detention is part of an effort to chill dissent over US support for Israel’s war, which has been described as a genocide by human rights groups and United Nations experts.

Civil liberties organisations have also expressed alarm that Khalil’s detention appears premised on his political views, rather than any criminal acts. Khalil has not been charged with any crime.

In Louisiana, Khalil continues to face an immigration court weighing his deportation. But in a separate case before the US federal court in Newark, New Jersey, Khalil’s lawyers are arguing a habeas corpus petition: in other words, a case that argues their client has been unlawfully detained.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, acting on behalf of the Trump administration, has cited the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 as the legal basis for Khalil’s detention.

Advertisement

That Cold War-era law stipulates that the secretary of state can deport a foreign national if that person is deemed to pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences”.

But that law has been rarely used and raises concerns about conflicts with the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to free speech regardless of citizenship.

Judge Farbiarz appeared to echo that concern, warning that the Trump administration’s rationale appeared to meet the standards for “constitutional vagueness”.

That, in turn, means Khalil’s petition is “likely to succeed on the merits of his claim” that the government’s actions were unconstitutional, the judge wrote on Wednesday.

Khalil’s legal team applauded the judge’s order, writing in a statement afterwards, “The district court held what we already knew: Secretary Rubio’s weaponization of immigration law to punish Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional.”

Advertisement

Khalil is one of several high-profile students whose cases have tested the constitutional bounds of the Trump administration’s actions.

Other international students detained for their involvement in pro-Palestine politics, such as Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk and Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, have been released from detention after legal challenges.

But Khalil remains in detention. The government denied a request for Khalil’s temporary release that would have allowed him to witness the birth of his son in April.

It also sought to prevent him from holding his newborn son during visitation sessions at a Louisiana detention centre.

“I am furious at the cruelty and inhumanity of this system that dares to call itself just,” Abdalla, Khalil’s wife, said in a statement.

Advertisement

She noted that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had denied the family “this most basic human right” after she flew more than 1,000 miles to visit him in Louisiana with their newborn son.

A judge blocked those efforts by ICE last week, allowing Khalil to hold his son for the first time more than one month after he was born.

World

US House passes Iran war powers resolution in rare moment of Trump backlash

Published

on

US House passes Iran war powers resolution in rare moment of Trump backlash

The United States House of Representatives has passed a resolution to rein in President Donald Trump’s powers to attack Iran without congressional authorisation.

Four Republicans joined Democrats to pass the bill in a vote of 215 to 208 on Wednesday in Washington, DC.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

While the resolution is unlikely to become law, it represents a stark rebuke against Trump’s decision to join Israel in attacking Iran on February 28, launching an ongoing conflict that will reach its 100th day on Saturday.

Trump did not seek congressional approval for the war, which he has attempted to label as a “skirmish” or a “short-term excursion”.

The Republican leader’s repeated use of military force abroad has frustrated some leaders in Congress, a body which the Constitution solely imbued with the power to declare war.

Advertisement

Wednesday’s vote marked the fourth time this year that the House has voted on a war powers resolution to force Trump to seek congressional backing for his military actions against Iran.

It is the first time, however, that the resolution has been successful in the House. Its passage comes after a political manoeuvre that some interpreted as a Republican effort to scuttle the bill.

A divide among Republicans

A vote on the war powers resolution was expected on May 21, the eve of Congress’s Memorial Day recess.

But the vote was cancelled, despite indications that the resolution would succeed with Republican support. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican and close Trump ally, chose to adjourn the chamber early.

The resolution, however, was picked up again after the recess. In Wednesday’s vote, Tom Barrett of Michigan, Warren Davidson of Ohio, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Thomas Massie of Kentucky splintered away from the Republican establishment to pass the bill.

Advertisement

Massie, whose re-election bid Trump actively campaigned against, marked the occasion with a message on social media.

“The Iran War Powers Resolution that I cosponsored (opposing the war) just passed the House of Representatives,” Massie wrote. “The People’s House is sending a message: end this war.”

Massie will not be returning to Congress next year. He was defeated last month in his local Republican Party primary by a Trump-backed opponent, Ed Gallrein.

Barrett, whose House seat is vulnerable to a Democratic takeover in November’s midterms, explained his vote by arguing that Trump had exceeded his mandate.

“Congress has the exclusive authority under the Constitution to declare war and authorize the use of force. The War Powers Act of 1973 delegates some of that authority to the president for a limited period of time,” Barrett, an army veteran, wrote.

Advertisement

“That authority has expired, and my support of this resolution tonight is consistent with my belief that it is time for Congress to decide the scope of the mission and the appropriate limits on the use of force in Iran.”

Democrats call on Senate to act

While Trump’s war on Iran has divided House Republicans, the chamber’s Democrats were unanimous in their backing of the war powers resolution. After the vote, several urged their colleagues in the Senate to swiftly pass the measure.

“We passed an Iran War Powers Resolution in the House to rein in Trump and end his unauthorized, reckless war,” Representative Ayanna Pressley, a progressive from Massachusetts, wrote on social media. “The Senate must immediately follow suit and act to end this war.”

Representative Shontel Brown of Ohio, meanwhile, underscored the constitutional issues raised by Trump’s war, as well as its cost.

“Congress holds the power to declare war—not the executive branch,” she said in a post. “After months of chaos, higher costs, and wasted resources, it is time to end Trump’s costly war in Iran NOW.”

Advertisement

The war on Iran has been costly for the US, with the Pentagon estimating in May that $29bn had been spent so far.

Some analysts consider this an undercount, though. In April, a public finance expert at Harvard University projected that the price tag could soar to more than $1 trillion.

There are also concerns that the war has cost the US in terms of military preparedness.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies, a US-based research institute, issued a report in April warning that certain critical munitions have run low, with the number used outstripping the number of anticipated replacements.

They include Tomahawk missiles, Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems (THAADs) and Precision Strike missiles (PrSMs).

Advertisement

Public backlash growing

US voters broadly disapprove of the US-Israel war against Iran. A poll last month from the Marist Institute for Public Opinion found that 60 percent of US citizens disapprove of Trump’s approach to the war, a jump from 54 percent in March.

The increase was even seen among Republicans. While 15 percent disapproved of Trump’s handling of the war in March, the number has since increased to 22 percent.

Among US citizens overall, 61 percent found that the war had done “more harm than good”.

The growing disapproval reflects, in part, the economic backlash to the war, which has sent prices for fuel and other products like agricultural fertiliser skyrocketing.

The Trump administration has also faced criticism for the unprovoked nature of the February 28 attack, though the president and his allies have argued the war was necessary to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Advertisement

More than 3,400 people have died in Iran during the war. At least 13 US soldiers have also been killed in the conflict, which spilled into nearby countries, with deaths reported across the region.

Wednesday’s House war powers resolution now proceeds to the Senate, which passed a similar bill in May.

But it faces an uphill battle overall, as Trump is likely to veto any attempt to curtail his military powers.

Only a bill passed with a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate can overcome a presidential veto. So far, neither the Senate’s version, nor the House’s, has breached that threshold.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Video: A Death at the Epicenter of Ebola

Published

on

Video: A Death at the Epicenter of Ebola

new video loaded: A Death at the Epicenter of Ebola

Our chief Africa correspondent, Declan Walsh, reports from the epicenter of the Ebola outbreak on how families, medical workers and local volunteers are grappling with losses of life.

By Declan Walsh, Estelle Caswell, Thomas Vollkommer and Arlette Bashizi

June 3, 2026

Continue Reading

World

US ally Kuwait condemns ‘brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks’ after airport was hit

Published

on

US ally Kuwait condemns ‘brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks’ after airport was hit

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Kuwait decried Iranian attacks in a statement issued by its foreign affairs ministry, saying that the Kuwait International Airport had been targeted.

“The Ministry of Foreign Affairs expresses the State of Kuwait’s condemnation and denunciation, in the strongest terms, of the brutal and ongoing Iranian attacks using ballistic missiles and drones, the latest of which occurred at dawn today, targeting once again civilian and vital facilities, including Kuwait International Airport, resulting in the death of one individual, injuries to others, and damage to vital facilities, including diplomatic missions,” part of the statement declared, according to a translation of the Arabic-language post on X.

Kuwait’s Ministry of Defense spokesperson had indicated that a building at Kuwait International Airport was damaged and people were injured, according to a post on X by the official account of Kuwait Army general staff headquarters.

IRANIANS SPEAK OUT OVER POSSIBLE TRUMP-REGIME DEAL

Advertisement

People are seen at Kuwait International Airport in Kuwait City, Kuwait, on June 1, 2026. (Jaber Abdulkhaleq/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“The Official Spokesman for the Ministry of Defense, Brigadier General Saud Abdulaziz Al-Otaibi, stated that a number of hostile drones targeted today the passenger building (T1) at Kuwait International Airport as a result of the criminal Iranian aggression, which resulted in significant material damage to the building and injuries to a number of individuals, who received the necessary medical care,” according to a translation of the Arabic-language post.

“He affirmed that the armed forces are monitoring the situation in coordination with the relevant authorities, and they are in a state of complete readiness to deal with any developments, and to take all necessary measures to preserve the security of the country and its stability,” the post added.

The Iranian hostilities come more than three months since the start of the U.S. war against the Islamic Republic.

In a Tuesday statement, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) indicated that America had engaged in “self-defense strikes” against Iran.

Advertisement

US MILITARY ATTACKS IRAN IN ‘SELF-DEFENSE STRIKES’ OVER WEEKEND

Imam Sadiq (AS) mosque with a giant Iranian flag installed on its front at the Palestine Square in Tehran on April 19, 2026. (ATTA KENARE / AFP via Getty Images)

“U.S. forces successfully defeated multiple Iranian ballistic missiles and drones, and conducted self-defense strikes on Qeshm Island in response to attempted attacks by Iran across the Middle East, June 2. Iran launched several ballistic missiles toward regional neighbors; however, all failed to hit their intended targets. Two Iranian missiles fired at Kuwait fell short or broke apart enroute, and three missiles launched at Bahrain were immediately intercepted by U.S. and Bahrain air defense forces,” the release noted.

“Moments earlier, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) forces shot down three one-way attack drones launched by Iran toward civilian mariners that were rightfully transiting regional waters. American forces also conducted self-defense strikes on an Iranian military ground control station on Qeshm Island. No U.S. personnel were harmed. CENTCOM forces remain vigilant and ready to defend against unwarranted Iranian aggression during the ongoing ceasefire,” the statement added.

TRUMP INSISTS IRAN TALKS ARE ON, SAYING DEAL IS ‘NOT A SIMPLE THING’

Advertisement

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth listens as Adm. Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, speaks during a press briefing at the Pentagon on April 16, 2026, in Arlington, Va. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

CENTCOM noted in a post on X that, “An additional wave of Iranian drones attempting to attack U.S. forces in Kuwait failed to impact intended targets tonight. U.S. Central Command air defenses successfully downed multiple drones and ensured no American personnel or assets were harmed.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending