Judge blocks deportation of Palestinian activist who led protests at Columbia – AP News

Lead: An immigration judge has stopped the Trump administration from deporting Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian graduate student who led pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University. The judge, Nina Froes, terminated the removal case after government lawyers failed to properly certify a document they wanted to use as evidence; the decision was made public on Tuesday. The administration has indicated it may appeal. The ruling follows a recent pattern of judges declining to approve swift deportations tied to criticism of Israel on U.S. campuses.

Key takeaways

• An immigration judge, Nina Froes, terminated the deportation case against Mohsen Mahdawi because attorneys did not properly certify a photocopied document under federal law.
• Mahdawi is a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for about 10 years and was born in a refugee camp in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.
• He was arrested during a citizenship interview in April but was released two weeks later by a federal judge; a separate federal lawsuit over that detention remains pending.
• The government cited a memo attributed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio arguing that noncitizens can be expelled if their presence may undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.
• The ruling is part of a wider federal push to remove pro-Palestinian campus activists; a separate immigration judge recently blocked deportation efforts against Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk.
• The Department of Homeland Security spokeswoman called Mahdawi a leader of ‘pro-terrorist riots’ and reiterated that visa revocation remains a goal.
• The Trump administration may appeal the decision, keeping the legal fight active in immigration and federal courts.

Background

Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian graduate student at Columbia University, has been at the center of campus protests opposing Israel and the war in Gaza. He has held legal permanent resident status in the United States for roughly a decade and was born in a refugee camp in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, details confirmed by court filings. In April of last year, immigration agents arrested him during a naturalization interview; a federal judge ordered his release about two weeks later and his lawyers have since pursued a separate civil case alleging unlawful detention.

The Trump administration has pursued a broader policy targeting certain pro-Palestinian activists on campuses, arguing that some noncitizens’ speech or conduct can bear on immigration status and foreign policy interests. That campaign has produced several immigration proceedings and public statements from federal officials. Last month a different immigration judge blocked the government’s attempt to remove Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student, over a published op-ed criticizing her school’s response to the Gaza war. The push has drawn scrutiny over due process and evidentiary standards in removal proceedings.

Main event

In the decision made public Tuesday, Judge Nina Froes found a procedural defect in how government attorneys submitted a document intended as evidence: they provided a photocopy but did not certify it as required under federal law. Because of that failure, Froes terminated the removal proceedings rather than allow the uncertified item to form the basis of deportation. The ruling did not turn on the underlying political speech or the factual allegations about Mahdawi’s conduct; it focused on the government’s compliance with procedural rules governing evidence.

Mahdawi’s legal team released a statement praising the decision and framing it as a defense of free expression and due process. They said the ruling upheld the rule of law against what they described as attempts to use immigration authority to silence dissent. Government attorneys signaled they could seek appellate review, keeping the legal contest alive and raising the prospect of higher-court rulings on both procedural and substantive claims.

The Department of Homeland Security, through spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, characterized Mahdawi as a leader of ‘pro-terrorist riots’ and argued his visa should be revoked; the statement indicates the administration continues to view certain campus protests as grounds for immigration action. Mahdawi also continues to pursue his civil lawsuit in federal district court challenging the lawfulness of his April detention; that litigation remains pending according to his lawyers.

Analysis & implications

The judge’s decision underscores the importance of procedural safeguards in immigration courts, where a single evidentiary lapse can halt a deportation effort. Courts often require strict compliance with certification and authentication rules because removal orders carry the severe consequence of loss of residence and separation from family. By terminating the case on procedural grounds, Judge Froes avoided reaching broader First Amendment or policy questions that could have produced a more sweeping precedent.

For the administration, the ruling represents a tactical setback in a larger strategy to use immigration tools against outspoken noncitizens. If appeals continue, appellate panels or the Supreme Court could eventually address whether and when political speech or campus protest justifies removal — a decision with nationwide ramifications for universities, foreign policy enforcement, and immigrant speech rights. Until higher courts weigh in, individual judges will likely continue to enforce strict evidentiary and procedural rules that can limit rapid removals.

Politically, the episode highlights tensions among campus free expression, national security claims, and immigration enforcement. Universities may face renewed scrutiny about how they handle protests and whether their disciplinary steps intersect with federal immigration actions. Internationally, using immigration authority to respond to campus activism tied to foreign conflicts could strain diplomatic messaging, particularly where the government frames speech as undermining foreign policy interests.

Comparison & data

The two recent rulings show a pattern: immigration judges have intervened where evidentiary or legal thresholds are questioned rather than resolving the broader constitutional and policy issues. That pattern suggests immediate relief for individuals in targeted proceedings but leaves open the possibility of future appellate rulings that could clarify government authority.

Reactions & quotes

Mahdawi’s attorneys and supporters framed the ruling as a vindication of due process and free speech protections in the immigration system. They emphasized the procedural basis of the judge’s decision and cautioned that the broader legal and political fights are ongoing.

“I am grateful to the court for honoring the rule of law and holding the line against the government’s attempts to trample on due process. This decision is an important step towards upholding what fear tried to destroy: the right to speak for peace and justice.”

Mohsen Mahdawi, statement via attorneys

From the administration’s side, Department of Homeland Security representatives reiterated a tougher posture toward activists they say were involved in violent or pro-terrorist activity, signaling continued use of immigration mechanisms in some cases.

“No activist judge, not this one or any other, is going to stop us from doing that,”

Tricia McLaughlin, Department of Homeland Security spokesperson

Unconfirmed

• Whether the Trump administration will file an appeal in this case has been described as possible but not yet confirmed by an appeal filing.
• The precise legal weight and applicability of the memo attributed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio in this context have not been fully litigated or publicly authenticated in these proceedings.
• Allegations characterizing campus actions as ‘pro-terrorist riots’ remain the government’s asserted position; independent factual findings tying Mahdawi to such activity have not been adjudicated in the public record cited here.

Bottom line

Judge Nina Froes’ ruling to terminate Mohsen Mahdawi’s deportation case underscores how procedural rules can decisively shape immigration outcomes. The decision did not settle the larger questions about speech, protest and immigration authority; instead, it halted one removal effort because of an evidentiary defect.

The broader legal and political contest over the government’s effort to remove pro-Palestinian campus activists is likely to continue through appeals and parallel civil litigation. Observers should watch for appellate rulings that could establish precedent on how far immigration enforcement can go when contesting political expression tied to foreign conflicts.

Sources

• Associated Press — news report summarizing the court ruling and responses