A conservative-leaning immigration appeals board has reversed a lower court decision and reinstated deportation proceedings against Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian activist whose case has sparked constitutional questions about free speech and immigration enforcement.

Appeals Board Reverses Immigration Judge Decision

The Board of Immigration Appeals overturned February’s ruling by Judge Nina Froes, who had dismissed the deportation case against Mahdawi. Froes originally ruled that the Department of Homeland Security failed to properly authenticate a memo allegedly signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio claiming the student posed a threat to United States foreign policy. The Trump administration appealed that decision, and the conservative-leaning board sided with the government.

The reinstated proceedings will be handled by a different judge after Froes was terminated from her position. Critics of the Trump administration claim the firing represents part of a broader effort to reshape immigration courts by replacing judges to increase deportation rates. The Executive Office for Immigration Review has not commented on the personnel change or the case reversal.

Federal Court Challenge Blocks Immediate Deportation

Despite the appeals board decision, Mahdawi cannot be deported immediately because his arrest remains under challenge in federal court, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Authorities detained him in April 2025 when he arrived for his citizenship interview. The student, a stateless Palestinian refugee from the West Bank, maintains his advocacy falls under First Amendment protections.

FBI Investigation From 2015 Cited

Government lawyers arguing for Mahdawi’s detainment referenced a 2015 FBI investigation in which a gun shop owner alleged the student claimed to have built machine guns in the West Bank to kill Jews. Mahdawi denies the allegations and characterizes the deportation effort as government retaliation against his peaceful political advocacy for Palestinian rights. His case highlights ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement authority and constitutional free speech protections, particularly regarding politically sensitive international issues.