What’s next?

Even after the injunction, the Trump administration has continued trying to remove Khalil through other means. After the “foreign policy” basis was blocked, the government introduced new allegations — claiming Khalil misrepresented facts in his green card application. His lawyers call the new charges “post hoc and pretextual,” and part of the same retaliatory campaign.

An immigration judge ruled against Khalil on these new grounds but his team appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“Those charges are baseless and obviously as part and parcel of the broader project of retaliation,” said Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center of Constitutional Rights, who also worked on Khalil’s case. It all “stems from the same sort of rotten root, their desire to punish him for speaking out on behalf of Palestinian human rights,” he added.

The case has become a rallying point for advocates concerned with immigrant rights, campus free speech and unchecked executive power.

“The implications are much broader and they’re broader than people who are speaking up for Palestinian human rights,” said Ramzi Kassem, founder and co-director of Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility. “It’s a template that can be mobilized against any issue set that this administration disagrees with, whether it’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights or racial justice, this model could be applied to those issues.”