An immigration judge has ruled that Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi will not be deported from the United States, a significant development in a case that drew attention to issues of free speech, political activism, and immigration enforcement. The ruling, issued February 13th by Judge Nina Froes, found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate Mahdawi’s removability.
The case centered on allegations stemming from both recent protests and incidents dating back to 2015. Mahdawi, 34, co-founded the Palestinian Student Union at Columbia University following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack, and has been a vocal participant in pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The government’s attempt to deport him also relied on claims of antisemitic remarks made years prior, but the judge determined the evidence presented was insufficient to proceed. This ruling marks a victory for Mahdawi and his legal team.
Judge Cites Insufficient Evidence
According to reports, Judge Froes determined that DHS relied on a memorandum purportedly signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but the department failed to authenticate the document. The government could not “meet its burden of proving removability,” VTDigger reported. Mahdawi’s attorneys shared the decision Tuesday in a filing with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York, which had been reviewing a prior ruling that led to his release from immigration custody in April 2025.
Mahdawi was initially detained during a citizenship appointment in Vermont in April 2025, spending over two weeks in custody before being released on bail after filing a habeas petition. A federal judge subsequently ordered that he not be deported or removed from the state, issuing the order through U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford in Burlington.
Allegations and Prior FBI Interview
The deportation case stemmed from multiple allegations. In addition to his involvement with the Palestinian Student Union at Columbia, founded with Mahmoud Khalil, the government pointed to a 2015 interview with the FBI. At that time, Mahdawi was questioned regarding allegedly making antisemitic remarks at a Vermont gun store and a firearms museum.
According to court documents cited by New England News Collaborative, the gun store owner claimed Mahdawi expressed interest in purchasing firearms, including a sniper rifle and an automatic weapon, and stated he had experience building modified 9mm submachine guns “to kill Jews even as he was in Palestine.” The owner also alleged Mahdawi said, “I like to kill Jews” at a museum in Windsor. Mahdawi has consistently denied making these statements or expressing violent intent.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, Trish McLaughlin, previously stated, “As the media works overtime to glorify a ringleader of the Columbia pro-terrorist riots, court documents reveal Mahdawi allegedly told a gun shop owner that he had considerable firearms experience and he ‘used to kill Jews’”.
Defense Claims Thorough Investigation Found No Evidence
Mahdawi’s defense team maintains that a thorough investigation by federal agents found “no evidence” supporting the allegations. In a statement released Tuesday, Mahdawi expressed gratitude for the court’s decision. “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,” he said. “This decision is an important step towards upholding what fear tried to destroy: the right to speak for peace and justice. Nearly a year ago, I was detained at my citizenship interview not for breaking the law but for speaking against the genocide of Palestinians.”
The Department of Homeland Security has been contacted for comment, but has not yet responded.
The outcome of this case raises questions about the standards of evidence required in deportation proceedings and the balance between national security concerns and the rights of free speech and political expression. Further legal challenges or appeals from the government remain possible, and the case will likely continue to be monitored by civil liberties groups and advocates for both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.
