NEWARK, NJ — At a time when non-citizens are being targeted and deported for engaging in lawful, nonviolent political speech protected under the First Amendment, The Rutherford Institute is warning American citizens who criticize the government that they could be next in line for punishment and retaliation.

In a joint amicus brief in Mahmoud Khalil v. Donald Trump, The Rutherford Institute, FIRE and a coalition of leading civil liberties groups are challenging the Trump Administration’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent U.S. resident who was arrested, transported to a private prison, and is pending deportation based solely on his involvement in nonviolent, anti-war protest activities at Columbia University, which is protected political speech under the First Amendment. The legal coalition argues that the government’s actions directly contradict the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 1945 that freedom of speech is accorded to citizens and non-citizens alike who reside in the U.S., and deporting Khalil based on his peaceful, nonviolent, political speech would violate the Constitution.

“If non-citizens can be deported for engaging in lawful, nonviolent political speech, who’s next? The case of Mahmoud Khalil—a lawful U.S. resident facing deportation for peaceful protest—sets a dangerous precedent for free speech rights. The First Amendment protects everyone in the U.S., but this case threatens to undermine that fundamental freedom,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “In other words, a threat to Khalil’s rights is a threat to the rights of anyone who dares to disagree with the government.”

On March 8, 2025, agents from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) arrested Mahmoud Khalil with no prior notice at his apartment, and initiated proceedings to deport him from the United States. At some point in the night, DHS transferred Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., to New Jersey and later to Louisiana. Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia University in New York City who was born to Palestinian refugees in Syria and is married to a U.S. citizen expecting their first child, was targeted by the Trump Administration because of his moral and vocal stance in opposition to Israel’s military operations in Gaza. As part of his pro-Palestine advocacy, Khalil had led several Palestine-focused student groups and organized educational events about Palestine, publicly denounced antisemitism, and called on Columbia to divest from its financial ties to Israel.

Notably, while the Trump administration has defended its actions by claiming that Khalil’s views are contrary to America’s foreign policy interests, it has not alleged that Khalil engaged in any acts of vandalism, physical violence, or unlawful occupations of buildings, which are not forms of protected speech, nor has it accused him of breaking any laws. The legal coalition’s amicus brief was filed in support of Khalil’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, asking for release from custody while the proceedings are pending. The amicus brief argues that deporting any non-citizen whose views are considered to be against America’s foreign policy interests, as determined by the subjective judgment of a current or future Secretary of State, places free expression in mortal peril, and is similar to laws of censorial regimes in China, Russia, and Saudi Arabia.

Ronnie London, Conor Fitzpatrick, Will Creeley, and others at FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression) advanced the arguments in the Khalil v. Trump amicus brief.

Mahmoud Khalil v. Donald Trump

• Amicus brief

Article posted with permission from John Whitehead