Trump vs. the Judiciary: Mahmoud Khalil case latest in courts striking down deportation and tariff policies

US President Donald Trump's administration and the federal judiciary have continued on their warpath with courts repeatedly ruling against his hallmark deportation and trade policies. Judges have constantly determined that Trump's executive orders overreach legal limits and endanger core liberties enshrined in the US constitution.

A New Jersey federal judge on May 28 delivered a major setback to the Trump administration's combative approach to immigration, ruling that the effort to deport pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil on foreign policy grounds is likely unconstitutional. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz is the latest in a string of recent court defeats for signature Trump-era policies.

US courts on deportation

Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident and student at Columbia University, was arrested by immigration officials in March for leading protests against Israeli military operations in Gaza. The Trump administration cited a rarely used statute that allows the Secretary of State to deport noncitizens deemed harmful to U.S. foreign policy interests.


However, Judge Farbiarz expressed deep skepticism, saying that the use of this provision on Khalil was "unconstitutionally vague" and that the government did not prove how Khalil's activism had a real impact on U.S. relations with other countries.

“The district court confirmed what we already knew: Secretary Rubio's misuse of immigration law to penalize Mahmoud and others like him is likely unconstitutional,” said Khalil’s legal team, who also called his ongoing detention an “affront to justice”.

The judge's decision did not immediately free Khalil, citing ongoing questions about his green card application, but it established a powerful precedent for future court challenges to such cases.

Similarly, in April 2025, a Boston judge in the U.S. blocked the Trump administration's push to quickly deport migrants to third countries without permitting them to establish that they would be persecuted or tortured. Judge Brian Murphy's initial injunction required people to be provided with a "meaningful opportunity" to pursue legal relief before being transported to third countries. The decision emphasized that the majority of the victims are refugees with lawful protections against being sent back to their native countries, and the policy is thus potentially fatal.

Moreover, in another historic ruling, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr. granted a permanent injunction in May 2025, preventing the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelans accused of belonging to the Tren de Aragua gang using the Alien Enemies Act—a wartime law. Judge Rodriguez ruled that the administration had “overstepped the legal limits” of the law, which is meant to be invoked in war or invasion, not as a weapon for mass deportations in peacetime. The Supreme Court subsequently halted removals under the act pending litigation, again highlighting judicial skepticism.

Trump tariff war faces judicial shield

Multiple lawsuits have also questioned Trump's imposition of tariffs on steel and aluminum imports under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act. Federal judges and the U.S. Court of International Trade, in multiple cases, have found that the administration overstepped its authority or did not adhere to proper procedure.

With regard to Khalil, his attorneys are set to introduce additional evidence for his release, while the case also continues to highlight the judiciary's role as a check on executive abuse. With every court decision against Trump's policies, the courts reaffirm their will to defend constitutional rights—no matter the politically motivated campaign waged against dissent and activism.