Arrested at citizenship interview: Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi’s detention sparks civil liberties firestorm

Why was Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi arrested at a citizenship interview?

Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student and permanent resident of the United States, was arrested by Department of Homeland Security officials during his naturalization interview in Vermont on April 14, 2025. The arrest came as a surprise to many, including his legal team, who viewed the encounter as a standard step in the naturalization process. Instead, Mahdawi was taken into custody and faces deportation proceedings under a rarely used provision of U.S. immigration law.

Mahdawi is a student at Columbia University and a co-founder of the Palestinian Student Union, which has organized peaceful protests and public discussions around Palestinian identity, human rights, and criticism of Israel’s military policies. His activism, which intensified during the 2024 Gaza conflict, had drawn attention both within and beyond the university.

The Department of Homeland Security has not disclosed full details about the grounds for Mahdawi’s arrest, but his legal team has confirmed that federal authorities cited his perceived threat to U.S. foreign policy interests—a provision that has been historically reserved for extreme cases but is now being invoked in response to pro-Palestinian activism.

What immigration law was used to detain Mahdawi?

Mahdawi’s arrest has been linked to a little-known clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. This provision allows immigration officials to deport individuals if their presence is deemed to have potentially adverse consequences on U.S. foreign policy. The statute has rarely been applied in modern times, largely due to its broad interpretation and risk of violating constitutional protections such as freedom of speech and association.

However, since 2024, there has been a marked uptick in its use against individuals perceived as sympathetic to causes that the administration considers politically or diplomatically sensitive. Mahdawi’s activism, including vocal criticism of Israel and support for Palestinian rights, has reportedly placed him within the scope of that policy shift.

Legal scholars have expressed concern about the constitutionality of using this provision to detain lawful permanent residents, especially in cases where the alleged grounds for action are political in nature. Critics argue that it sets a dangerous precedent for government retaliation against dissenting political voices.

How has the legal system responded to Mahdawi’s arrest?

Within hours of Mahdawi’s arrest, his attorneys filed a petition for habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court in Vermont, seeking immediate relief and a stay on any removal orders. U.S. District Judge William Sessions issued a temporary restraining order preventing the federal government from transferring Mahdawi out of the district until further court proceedings are held.

Mahdawi’s legal team argues that his detention is unconstitutional and retaliatory. According to their filings, Mahdawi had no criminal record, complied with all immigration procedures, and was actively pursuing U.S. citizenship through legal channels. They contend that his political views and student activism are protected under the First Amendment, and that targeting him for these views amounts to a violation of his civil liberties.

Attorneys and civil rights organizations following the case say it may become a critical test of how immigration enforcement intersects with constitutionally protected political expression, particularly in academic settings where freedom of speech has historically been guarded.

What precedent does this set for student activism in the U.S.?

Mahdawi is not the only student swept up in this wave of enforcement. His associate, Mahmoud Khalil, who also co-founded the Palestinian Student Union at Columbia, was previously detained under similar circumstances. Together, their cases highlight a growing trend in federal enforcement efforts against foreign nationals involved in politically charged campus activism.

Student groups across the U.S., particularly those advocating for Palestinian rights, have reported increased surveillance, disciplinary scrutiny, and administrative pressure. This has raised concerns about a potential chilling effect on student speech and the erosion of academic freedom.

Universities like Columbia, which traditionally position themselves as bastions of free expression, now face increasing pressure to defend those rights while also navigating federal oversight and political pressures. Faculty members and student organizations have expressed solidarity with Mahdawi, calling for due process and the protection of civil liberties for all students, regardless of immigration status.

How have elected officials and advocacy groups reacted?

Mahdawi’s arrest has drawn swift condemnation from lawmakers and civil society groups alike. Vermont Senators Bernie Sanders and Peter Welch, along with Representative Becca Balint, issued a joint statement calling the detention immoral, inhumane, and legally dubious. They urged the Department of Homeland Security to release Mahdawi immediately and ensure that due process is observed.

Immigrant rights organizations have amplified these calls, stating that the case underscores a dangerous trend of using immigration law as a tool for political retribution. Palestinian advocacy groups argue that Mahdawi’s detention is part of a broader campaign to silence pro-Palestinian voices in the United States, particularly at a time when discourse about Middle East policy is intensifying.

Meanwhile, organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union have signaled interest in intervening in the case, potentially providing legal support or filing amicus briefs to challenge the constitutionality of the legal provision used to justify the arrest.

What are the implications for immigration law and civil liberties?

The broader implications of Mahdawi’s arrest lie in how the U.S. government defines and responds to political dissent, especially when it comes from lawful permanent residents. While the Trump administration has justified its approach as necessary to safeguard national interests, civil liberties advocates warn that it could lead to an erosion of democratic principles and protections.

Legal experts caution that the use of foreign policy-based deportation provisions risks turning immigration enforcement into a mechanism for ideological control. If individuals can be detained or deported for their beliefs—particularly those expressed in academic forums—the precedent could affect thousands of noncitizens who engage in political activism across a range of issues.

At the same time, Mahdawi’s case has become a focal point in the debate over how U.S. institutions balance freedom of speech with immigration policy. It also raises difficult questions about whether foreign-born individuals enjoy the same protections as citizens when expressing unpopular or controversial views.

As legal proceedings continue, the outcome could reshape how the courts interpret constitutional protections for immigrants and set new limits—or permissions—on federal authority over speech and activism.