Jamee E. Comans, an immigration judge in Louisiana, today ruled that the Trump administration had met the statutory requirements for deporting former Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was targeted because of his prominent role in anti-Israel protests at Columbia University. That decision underlines the vast power that a federal law gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio to deem someone "subject to removal" based on the opinions he expresses.

"This court is without jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity of this law under the Constitution," Comans said as she delivered her ruling. But the constitutionality of the law and Rubio's use of it against Khalil is the focus of litigation in New Jersey, where U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz has blocked Khalil's deportation pending resolution of the case. Comans' decision reinforces Khalil's constitutional arguments by showing how easy it currently is to deport someone whose views offend the secretary of state.

On Tuesday, Comans said she would terminate the deportation case against Khalil unless the government provided evidence to support its claim that he is subject to removal. In response, the government submitted a two-page memo in which Rubio avers that allowing Khalil to remain in the United States "would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest"—specifically, the government's interest in "combat[ting] anti-Semitism around the world and in the United States."

That legal rationale, which is based on a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) codified as 8 USC 1227(a)(4)(C)(i), had already been widely reported, and the memo does not flesh it out with details specific to Khalil. It merely claims that Khalil, along with another green-card holder whose name is redacted, participated in "antisemitic protests and disruptive activities." Rubio's haziness underlines the startling breadth of the statute he is invoking, which not only encompasses constitutionally protected speech but also gives the secretary of state seemingly unlimited discretion to decide when people are subject to deportation because of their views.