3 weeks ago
13
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
The government wants the detainee’s case heard in Louisiana, where an appellate judge may be friendlier. At a hearing in Newark, one of his lawyers called the situation “Kafkaesque.”
- March 28, 2025, 3:28 p.m. ET
A Newark federal judge on Friday heard arguments on whether the case to free Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University, should continue to play out in New Jersey or be transferred to Louisiana, a potentially more favorable venue for the government’s case.
The judge, Michael Farbiarz, did not make an immediate decision, but is expected to rule soon. Mr. Khalil, a legal permanent resident, was detained on March 8 at his New York City apartment, sent briefly to a New Jersey detention center and now has been held for nearly three weeks in a facility in Jena, La.
While Mr. Khalil’s lawyers are fighting for his freedom, the Trump administration is seeking to deport him, saying that he spread antisemitism through his involvement in the protests. If Mr. Khalil stays in Louisiana, his case could end up in one of America’s most conservative appeals courts. Those judges could decide whether the government’s rationale for detaining Mr. Khalil could be used in other cases.
The case was originally filed in New York, but a judge there decided he lacked jurisdiction and that it should be heard in New Jersey. The attempts by Mr. Khalil’s lawyers to free him have created a tangle of litigation, much of which has focused on a seemingly technical question: In which court should his case be heard?
On Friday in Newark, Baher Azmy, a lawyer for Mr. Khalil and legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued in court that transferring the case to Louisiana would set a precedent for other activists to be moved without legal justification, which he called “Kafkaesque.”
The government’s case against Mr. Khalil was undertaken “in order to retaliate against constitutionally protected speech,” Mr. Azmy said.
