-
His role as a political affairs officer for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, and
-
Ongoing employment with the Syria Office of the British Embassy in Beirut.
These omissions, the DOJ claims, are sufficient grounds to pursue Khalil’s removal from the United States independent of the controversial foreign policy rationale.
High-Powered Legal Teams Clash Over Rights and Risk
Khalil’s legal defense reads like a roll call of America’s top civil rights defenders. His representation includes:
-
The Center for Constitutional Rights
-
The Immigrant Rights Clinic at NYU School of Law
-
Dratel & Lewis
-
Van Der Hout LLP
-
The Legal Aid Society
-
CUNY’s CLEAR Project
-
The NYCLU and ACLU Foundations
-
Washington Square Legal Services
-
ACLU of New Jersey
The federal government, on the other side, is represented by August Flentje and Dhruman Y. Sampat from the DOJ’s Civil Division.
Legal Stakes High in an Era of Political Pressure
Judge Farbiarz had originally given the DOJ a deadline—Friday—to appeal the injunction he granted in favor of Khalil. But instead of walking through the legal front door, the DOJ opted for a side entrance: new accusations with old consequences.
The heart of the case, however, still beats to the rhythm of broader constitutional concerns. Civil liberties groups warn that using vague national security justifications to detain noncitizens can easily become a slippery slope, undermining both due process and international reputation.
Khalil’s legal team is expected to respond swiftly, potentially launching new legal challenges to what they may describe as a backdoor maneuver by federal authorities.
As this case barrels forward, it could set crucial precedent for how far executive power extends when immigration meets geopolitics—and whether a courtroom order still carries enough weight to stand in its way.
