“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
.
What’s at stake in this case?
The Trump Justice Department had an immigrant student arrested, detained and later deported because of his political activities.
What happened in this case?
Mohden Mahdawi became a lawful permanent resident of the US more than a decade ago. He enrolled at Columbia University, where he became involved in anti-Israel and anti-US protest activity. When he went to what he thought was a proceeding that would lead to his naturalization as a US citizen in 2025, he was arrested and ordered to appear before an immigration judge. The Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear that claimed that Mahdawi’s presence in the US would have potentially “serious foreign policy consequences.”
Mahdawi filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, contending that the government had engaged in “retaliatory and targeted detention and attempted removal“ of him. Obama district court judge Geoffrey Crawford ordered Mahdawi’s release, but the government promptly appealed to the Second Circuit.
In July, Trump judges William Nardini and Steven Menashi joined an opinion by George W Bush judge Debra Ann Livingston that ruled against Mahdawi in Mahdawi v Trump. Although Judge Crawford had found that the case was properly before him, the appellate panel ruled that he did not have jurisdiction and vacated his order below.
Why is the decision harmful?
The decision has been characterized as a “major win” for the Trump Administration in its anti-immigration efforts. Mahdawi can yet contest the final order that he be removed from the US, which is now taking place. He cannot, however, stop the government from detaining him as the review takes place. As he and the ACLU have stated, the ruling “reflects a dangerous failure under political pressure” that “risks turning the federal courts into instruments of politics rather than guardians of constitutional freedom.”