Hold onto your hats, folks—New Jersey’s judicial system just dropped a bombshell by keeping an anti-Israel activist behind bars.
In a nutshell, New Jersey District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz ruled on Friday to keep Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian and Columbia University grad, in ICE custody over issues with his green card application, despite an earlier decision questioning part of the grounds for his detention, Breitbart reported.
Let’s rewind to March, when U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) scooped up Khalil after he spearheaded some fiery protests on Columbia’s campus. Many see this as part of a broader Trump administration push to clamp down on radical activism. Turns out, actions do have consequences, even on Ivy League turf.
On Wednesday, Judge Farbiarz made waves by ruling that ICE couldn’t hold Khalil based solely on a determination by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Federal officials, however, weren’t ready to wave the white flag, insisting they had other reasons to keep him locked up.
By Friday, the Justice Department doubled down, pointing to omissions on Khalil’s green card application as a valid reason for detention. This isn’t just bureaucratic nitpicking—it’s a reminder that paperwork matters, especially when you’re under scrutiny.
Judge Farbiarz himself noted, “The Respondents have now represented that the Petitioner is being detained on another, second charge.” That’s right, folks, when one door closes, the feds seem quick to find another to lock tight. It’s almost like they’ve got a playbook for this.
Back on May 28, the judge wasn’t impressed with Khalil’s defense, stating that he “did not put forward factual evidence” to challenge this second charge. No evidence, no dice—seems like a basic rule of law that even a Columbia grad might grasp.
Farbiarz also pointed out that Khalil “failed to make meaningful legal arguments” against his continued detention. If you’re going to fight the system, you’d better bring more than just campus protest chants to the courtroom.
What’s more, Khalil hasn’t even bothered to seek appellate review of the court’s holdings from May 28. For someone so vocal on campus, this silence in the legal arena is deafening—and not exactly a winning strategy.
Despite the setbacks, Judge Farbiarz was clear that Khalil isn’t out of options, noting that “a number of avenues are now available,” like a bail application to an immigration judge. It’s a small lifeline, but one wonders if Khalil’s team will seize it or stick to symbolic gestures.
Farbiarz didn’t mince words on Friday, declaring, “To the extent the Petitioner requests relief from this Court, the request is denied.” Ouch—that’s the kind of judicial shutdown that stings worse than a protest pepper spray. But it’s hard to argue with a ruling grounded in legal gaps on Khalil’s part.
Let’s not forget Khalil’s background as a Palestinian and Algerian citizen, which adds layers to this already complex case. While some might cry foul over perceived targeting, the core issue here is about following immigration rules, not personal vendettas.
This case isn’t just about one activist—it’s a signal of tougher enforcement under the current administration’s watch. For those cheering a return to law and order, this feels like a step in the right direction, though critics will likely see it as heavy-handed.
Still, there’s a balance to strike between security and fairness, and Khalil’s detention raises valid questions about how far the government should go in cracking down on controversial figures. It’s a tightrope walk, but ignoring green card discrepancies isn’t an option either.
In the end, Judge Farbiarz’s rulings show that the legal system isn’t swayed by campus rhetoric or progressive talking points. If Khalil wants freedom, he’ll need to play by the courtroom’s rules, not just rally cries—and that’s a lesson worth learning for any activist stepping into the spotlight.
