Lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil have a right to freedom of speech – but does that protect them from deportation?

More than 1,000 foreign university students have had their visas revoked since January 2025, including those who participated in Palestinian rights protests.
The Trump administration has argued that it can detain and deport noncitizens who participate in Palestinian rights protests under broad language in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, citing potential “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the US.
Lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil have a right to freedom of speech, but the Trump administration claims that their political speech can be a threat to national security interests, raising questions about the limits of free speech for noncitizens in the US.
A federal judge has ordered the government not to deport Khalil until all his court cases are resolved, while an immigration judge in Louisiana ruled that he could be deported for being a national security risk, which Khalil’s attorneys are appealing.
The Supreme Court will ultimately have to determine whether the federal government can deport noncitizens based on their political speech, and if so, what the limits of free speech should be for citizens and noncitizens alike.

The detention of noncitizen university students after their Palestinian rights activism raises questions about the limits of free speech. Rob Dobi/Moment/Getty Images

The Trump administration has revoked the visas of more than 1,000 foreign university students since January 2025. Many of the individual cases that have made headlines center on foreign-born university students who participated in Palestinian rights protests.

In early March, the federal government arrested, detained and began deportation proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident born in Syria to Palestinian parents. Khalil participated in Palestinian rights protests at Columbia University in 2024.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in an April 9 memo that allowing Khalil to stay in the country would create a “hostile environment for Jewish students in the United States.”

“The foreign policy of the United States champions core American interests and American citizens and condoning anti-Semitic conduct and disruptive protests in the United States would severely undermine that significant foreign policy objective,” Rubio wrote.

Khalil is not the only noncitizen university student with legal permission to be in the U.S. who has been arrested and faces deportation after being involved in the Palestinian rights movement.

Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish-born student at Tufts University, was detained by immigration authorities on March 25 near her Massachusetts home and is currently being held in Louisiana. She co-authored a 2024 op-ed in the campus newspaper calling for Tufts to recognize a genocide in the Gaza Strip.

And Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian man who is a lawful permanent resident and a Columbia University student active in the Palestinian rights protests, was detained and arrested on April 25. This happened when Mahdawi showed up at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement office for a citizenship interview in Vermont.

“If you apply for a student visa to come to the United States and you say you’re coming not just to study, but to participate in movements that vandalize universities, harass students, take over buildings, and cause chaos, we’re not giving you that visa,” Rubio said on March 23, when asked by a journalist about revoking student visas and arresting Öztürk.

These cases raise important questions: Do lawful permanent residents have the right to protected free speech? Or are there limitations – among them, a determination by the U.S. government that permanent residents’ speech or political activity makes them a threat to national security?

A person wears a white shirt and stands outside large black gates and faces toward a man wearing a red shirt who is speaking. — Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil speaks to reporters at Columbia University on June 1, 2024, during a media briefing organized by protesters who were objecting to Israel’s military operations in Gaza.
Selcuk Acar/Anadolu via Getty Images

Noncitizens’ First Amendment rights

Arresting and detaining nonviolent, foreign protesters and the authors of opinion pieces is usually not legally permissible. That’s because these actions are protected by the Constitution’s First Amendment, which guarantees everyone the right to freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court has found that there are some limits to free speech. The government may restrict speech, for example, when someone yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater when there is no actual danger.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the right to freedom of speech applies to everyone in the U.S., including noncitizens.

Still, the First Amendment does not apply to noncitizens physically outside the U.S. The Supreme Court, for example, ruled in 1972 that the government may deny visas and bar entry to noncitizens who were seeking admission to the U.S. to engage in constitutionally protected speech.

When noncitizens are living in the U.S., they have the same First Amendment protections as U.S. citizens, the Supreme Court ruled in 1945.

As a scholar of U.S immigration and administrative law, I know that these protections enter a murkier territory when U.S. immigration law collides with the Constitution.

A conflict with immigration law

The Trump administration rests its argument that it can legally detain and deport noncitizens who have participated in Palestinian rights protests – but have not been charged with any crimes – on broad language in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act.

This law articulates important immigration rules, like who can enter the country and how someone can become a citizen. It also includes vague language that gives the secretary of state power to deport noncitizens in certain cases.

“An alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable,” the law reads.

As foreign-born students Mahdawi, Öztürk and Khalil fight in court for their right to legally stay in the U.S., Rubio and other Trump administration leaders claim that this law gives them the power to determine whether Khalil and other noncitizens are creating “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S.

The Department of Homeland Security also wrote on the social platform X on March 9 that “Khalil led activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

But the Trump administration has not provided any further specific details about how the views and actions of Khalil and other detained foreign students create serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the U.S. Nor has the government alleged that Khalil and other noncitizen students committed crimes or broke the law.

Khalil’s attorneys have challenged the government’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a basis to deport him in federal court. The lawyers assert that the U.S. government is attempting to deport Khalil for protected speech.

Legal precedent and steps forward

The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment does not protect lawful permanent residents from being deported if their political affiliation violates the laws.

But the court has not yet decided if lawful permanent residents participating in protests or expressing political views are protected against deportation, when the only evident ground for their deportation is political speech.

A federal judge in New Jersey, where Khalil was first briefly detained, has ordered the government not to deport him until all his different court cases are resolved.

On April 11, a different immigration judge in Louisiana – where Khalil is currently detained – ruled that he could be deported for being a national security risk. Khalil’s attorneys are appealing this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which is part of the Department of Justice.

Regardless of the outcome at the district court level, Khalil’s case will be appealed and most likely end up before the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court will then have to determine the appropriate balance between the executive branch’s authority to deport noncitizens it classifies as posing a threat to the country, and the right to freedom of expression that all people residing in the U.S. have.

If the Supreme Court holds that the federal government can say that someone’s political speech can be a threat to U.S. national security interests, I believe the core of the First Amendment is at risk, for citizens as well as noncitizens.

Erin Corcoran does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

link

Q. Can lawful permanent residents like Mahmoud Khalil be deported for participating in Palestinian rights protests?

A. The Trump administration claims that it can deport noncitizens who have participated in Palestinian rights protests, but this is a disputed issue and may violate their First Amendment rights.

Q. Does the First Amendment protect foreign-born university students from deportation for exercising their right to free speech?

A. Yes, the Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment applies to everyone in the U.S., including noncitizens, when they are living in the country.

Q. Can the government deny visas and bar entry to noncitizens who engage in constitutionally protected speech?

A. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government may do so, but only if there is a reasonable ground to believe that the alien’s presence or activities would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.

Q. What is the basis of the Trump administration’s claim that Mahmoud Khalil and other noncitizen students are creating “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S.?

A. The government has not provided specific details about how Khalil and other detained foreign students’ views and actions create serious adverse foreign policy consequences, despite alleging that they have ties to Hamas.

Q. Can lawful permanent residents be deported for political speech alone, without any evidence of a crime or lawbreaking?

A. This is a disputed issue, with the Supreme Court having ruled that the First Amendment does not protect lawful permanent residents from being deported if their political affiliation violates the laws, but it has not yet decided if protected speech is enough to justify deportation.

Q. What is the current status of Mahmoud Khalil’s case in court?

A. Khalil’s attorneys have challenged the government’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act as a basis for his deportation, and a federal judge in New Jersey has ordered the government not to deport him until all his cases are resolved.

Q. Will the Supreme Court ultimately decide whether the Trump administration can deport noncitizen students for political speech?

A. Yes, Khalil’s case will likely end up before the Supreme Court, which will have to determine the appropriate balance between the executive branch’s authority to deport noncitizens and the right to freedom of expression.

Q. What are the implications if the Supreme Court holds that someone’s political speech can be a threat to U.S. national security interests?

A. If the court holds this, it could set a dangerous precedent for the core of the First Amendment, which protects all people residing in the U.S., not just citizens.

Q. How have the Trump administration leaders responded to criticism about their treatment of foreign-born students like Mahmoud Khalil?

A. The article does not mention specific responses from Trump administration leaders, but it notes that they claim the law gives them the power to determine whether noncitizens are creating “serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the U.S.