This post is part of our Civics 101 series, plain-language breakdowns of how power really works in the U.S. legal system.

Before we dive into today’s post about the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian rights advocate detained under a vague and rarely used immigration statute, let’s pause with this quote.

“What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”
“Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
“Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you – where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws… and if you cut them down… do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”

— Sir Thomas More, A Man for All Seasons by Robert Bolt

Thomas More isn’t praising the Devil. He’s warning us. Even the worst among us deserves the protection of law, because once we start ignoring laws for people we dislike, the ground beneath all of us gets dangerously shaky. What protects one of us must protect all of us, or it protects no one at all.

This week’s Civics 101 is about exactly that: how obscure laws, vague language, and unchecked power can be used to silence people, and how the courts are sometimes the only line of defense.

What do you get when the government uses an immigration law from the Cold War era to punish someone for speaking out?

A legal mess. And a civics lesson.

Last week, a federal court ruled that the Trump administration’s use of a little-known immigration provision (Section 1227) to detain Mahmoud Khalil was likely unconstitutional. Khalil, a Palestinian rights advocate and father, was ripped from his family in New Jersey and transferred 1,400 miles away to a detention facility in Louisiana.

Why? For foreign policy reasons, they said.

What is Section 1227?

It’s part of the Immigration and Nationality Act. In rare cases, it lets the Secretary of State remove a non-citizen if they’re deemed a foreign policy “threat.”

But here’s the problem: the law is so vague that it opens the door to abuse. In this case, the government used it not because Mahmoud committed a crime, but because he spoke out in support of Palestinian rights.

The ruling made it clear: this kind of power grab is not okay.

⚖️ What Did the Court Say?

Judge Michael Farbiarz called the government’s argument “unprecedented” and said Khalil’s detention under this law is likely unconstitutional. He warned that using vague laws like this could eventually be applied far beyond immigration cases, including against U.S. citizens in criminal contexts.

The implications are chilling.

Why This Matters

Immigration law isn’t just about who gets to stay. It’s about how power is used, and misused.

When the government uses obscure laws to target people for their speech or identity, it threatens all of us. If it’s possible for one man to be imprisoned for speaking out, it becomes possible for anyone to be next.

This is exactly why civics matters: so we know when our laws are being bent into weapons.

💬 From the Judge:

“If Section 1227 can apply, here, to the Petitioner, then other, similar statutes can also one day be made to apply. Not just in the removal context, as to foreign nationals. But also in the criminal context, as to everyone.”

What You Can Do

✍️ Learn more about the case from the Center for Constitutional Rights.
🗣️ Speak out about unjust detention. It happens more than you think, both inside and outside prison walls.
❤️ Support organizations fighting detention and deportation abuses.
👀 Want to see more posts like this? Subscribe.