Fact Check: Judge ruled government failed to prove Khalil was a flight risk or danger.

Fact Check: "Judge ruled government failed to prove Khalil was a flight risk or danger."

What We Know

On June 20, 2025, a federal judge, Michael E. Farbiarz, ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and legal permanent resident, from immigration detention after more than three months. The judge ruled that the government failed to demonstrate that Khalil posed a flight risk or danger to the community, stating that the government's shifting justifications for his detention appeared to be a cover for retaliating against his political speech (Columbia activist Mahmoud Khalil freed from detention, Mahmoud Khalil Ordered Released After 3 Months of Detention). Khalil's detention had sparked significant public outcry, particularly due to his activism against U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel and Palestine.

During the hearing, Judge Farbiarz expressed skepticism about the government's claims, emphasizing that it was "overwhelmingly unlikely" for a lawful permanent resident to be held on the remaining charge related to his immigration status (Mahmoud Khalil Ordered Released After 3 Months of Detention). The judge's ruling was based on the assessment that Khalil did not represent a flight risk or a danger, which was a critical factor in his decision to grant bail (Pro-Palestinian activist Khalil walks free after US judge ...).

Analysis

The ruling by Judge Farbiarz is significant not only for Khalil but also for the broader implications regarding the use of immigration enforcement as a tool against political dissent. The judge's determination that the government had not substantiated its claims about Khalil's potential danger or flight risk is supported by multiple sources, including reports from Reuters and BBC.

The credibility of these sources is generally high, as they are established news organizations known for their journalistic standards. The ruling was also characterized as a potential violation of Khalil's First Amendment rights, suggesting that his detention was politically motivated rather than based on legitimate legal grounds. This aligns with the views expressed by Khalil's legal team, who argued that the government's actions were retaliatory due to his activism (Mahmoud Khalil Ordered Released After 3 Months of Detention).

Moreover, the judge's comments about the unusual nature of the charges against Khalil and the likelihood of the government's claims being unconstitutional add weight to the argument that the government failed to meet its burden of proof. The judge's skepticism about the government's rationale for Khalil's detention reflects a critical judicial oversight of executive actions in immigration cases, particularly those involving political speech (Pro-Palestinian activist Khalil walks free after US judge ..., Mahmoud Khalil Ordered Released After 3 Months of Detention).

Conclusion

The claim that "Judge ruled government failed to prove Khalil was a flight risk or danger" is True. The evidence from multiple credible sources indicates that Judge Farbiarz explicitly stated the government did not provide sufficient justification for Khalil's detention, concluding that he posed neither a flight risk nor a danger to the community. This ruling highlights significant concerns regarding the intersection of immigration enforcement and political expression.