Fact Check: Judge Farbiarz ruled the McCarthy-era law that the Trump administration has cited to detain Khalil and other pro-Palestinian students was likely unconstitutional.

Fact Check: "Judge Farbiarz ruled the McCarthy-era law that the Trump administration has cited to detain Khalil and other pro-Palestinian students was likely unconstitutional."

What We Know

Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court for New Jersey ruled that the Trump administration's justification for detaining Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate, was likely unconstitutional. The administration had cited a rarely used McCarthy-era law, which allows for the detention of individuals deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests, specifically in relation to preventing antisemitism (New York Times source-1). This law was invoked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who claimed Khalil's presence in the U.S. undermined U.S. foreign policy goals (NPR source-2).

Judge Farbiarz indicated that the allegations made against Khalil did not sufficiently justify his continued detention, stating that lawful permanent residents are "virtually never detained" for such alleged omissions in residency applications (Al Jazeera source-3). The judge's ruling suggested that the legal grounds for Khalil's detention were not only weak but also likely unconstitutional, as they infringed upon his First Amendment rights (CBS News source-4).

Analysis

The claim that Judge Farbiarz ruled the McCarthy-era law unconstitutional is supported by multiple credible sources. The New York Times reported that the judge explicitly stated the law invoked by the Trump administration was "most likely unconstitutional" (source-1). NPR corroborated this by noting that the judge ruled the government could not continue to detain Khalil based on the Secretary of State's determination that he posed a threat to U.S. foreign policy (source-2).

The analysis of the sources indicates a high level of reliability. Major news outlets such as The New York Times and NPR are known for their rigorous journalistic standards and fact-checking processes. The legal implications of the judge's ruling also align with broader discussions about civil liberties, particularly concerning free speech and the rights of lawful permanent residents in the U.S.

However, it's important to note that while the judge's ruling is significant, it is not yet final, as the government has the option to appeal the decision (source-4). This ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities of immigration law and national security concerns, but the judge's preliminary findings strongly suggest that the legal basis for Khalil's detention is flawed.

Conclusion

Verdict: True

Judge Farbiarz's ruling that the law cited by the Trump administration to detain Khalil was likely unconstitutional is supported by multiple credible sources. His decision reflects a judicial acknowledgment of the potential overreach of government authority in matters concerning free speech and immigration. The ruling is a significant development in the ongoing legal discourse surrounding civil liberties in the context of national security.

Sources

1. Blocked by Judge, U.S. Shifts Rationale for Detaining ...
2. Federal judge says he could release Mahmoud Khalil as ...
3. Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can remain in custody amid ...
4. Judge rules Mahmoud Khalil can't be deported or detained ...
5. Mahmoud Khalil will remain in detention, despite judge's ...
6. Judge denies Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil's request ...
7. Judge orders Trump administration to release Mahmoud ...
8. Judge won't order release of pro-Palestinian activist ...