March 13, 2025
NOTE: The Following Is Not Legal Advice: Just My 1st Amendment Opinion. See your own attorney for legal advice.
In recent months, the case of Mahmoud Khalil—a Palestinian activist and lawful permanent resident (LPR)—has garnered intense national attention. Various media outlets, including Fox News and CBN, as well as public figures such as Senator John Kennedy, have made sweeping statements alleging that #MahmoudKhalil supports Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. The @realDonaldTrump administration has taken the unprecedented step of detaining Khalil and seeking to deport him, ostensibly under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) that permit removal if the Secretary of State deems a noncitizen’s presence in the United States to be “adverse” to U.S. foreign policy interests.
However, there remains a conspicuous absence of clear and convincing evidence substantiating these claims. Without it, the media and public figures risk exposure to defamation lawsuits—lawsuits that, if successful, could transform Mahmoud Khalil into a “wealthy LPR,” due to large monetary awards or settlements. This article will explore the legal framework for such defamation claims, outline relevant precedents, explain why certain immigration case law cited by Senator Kennedy may be inapplicable, and illuminate the potential dangers of relying on broad “plenary power” to target individuals already living within the country.
I. Defamation: When Reckless Accusations Become a Lawsuit Waiting to Happen.
A. What Constitutes Defamation?
Defamation in the United States typically requires a false statement of fact that harms another’s reputation, made with a requisite level of fault. For public figures, the standard comes from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) and demands proof of actual malice, meaning the statements were made knowing they were false or "with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements". By now Khalil may be considered at least partially a public figure so I'm guessing the Sullivan standard may apply rather than the less stringent negligent standard. Even so, i'm shocked that "reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements" standard doesn't give more media outlets pause. Although Mahmoud Khalil’s status (public figure vs. private figure) could be debated—given the national attention—any suit would likely proceed under a standard requiring Khalil to prove that the speaker either knew the statements were false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
False Statement of Fact: Mere opinion or hyperbolic rhetoric is not actionable; a statement must be verifiably false.
Actual Malice: If the person making the statement is a public official or recognized media figure, they may still be liable if they acted with reckless indifference to the truth.
Damages: Khalil would need to show reputational harm. Being labeled a supporter of terrorism, especially without evidence, poses significant reputational harm.
B. High-Profile Defamation Precedents
Several landmark defamation cases involving media outlets and public figures highlight the steep costs of reckless or false allegations:
1. Richard Jewell (1996)
Wrongly accused in the 1996 Atlanta Olympic Park bombing case.
Multiple media entities settled with Jewell after it was determined the accusations were baseless and lacked factual support.
2. Nick Sandmann (2019–2020)
A high school student from Covington Catholic High School, portrayed by media outlets as racially antagonistic in a viral video.
Sued CNN, The Washington Post, and NBC for misrepresenting the facts. Obtained significant settlements.
3. Michael Irvin (2023)
The former NFL star sued Marriott after staff claimed he behaved inappropriately during a hotel encounter.
The allegations were shown to be dubious, leading to a settlement.
4. Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News (2023)
Dominion accused Fox News of broadcasting false claims about voting machine fraud in the 2020 election.
Fox settled for $787 million, reflecting how a baseless narrative repeated on air can lead to massive liability.
For public figures and news networks, these cases illustrate the financial repercussions of disseminating false information. If Mahmoud Khalil can prove no evidence exists linking him to Hamas, then statements labeling him a terrorist supporter could open the door to a robust defamation claim.
C. Senator John Kennedy, Fox News, and CBN
Much attention comes from media appearances by people like Senator John Kennedy on Fox News (seen here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=CJHf82vaIrs ) and others on other platforms, like CBN News asserting Khalil’s alleged support for Hamas. Because Senator Kennedy made these statements outside the legislative chamber, he does not enjoy absolute immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 6). That Clause protects official legislative acts and remarks on the floor of Congress, but not comments made in media interviews.
1. Kennedy’s Claims on Fox News
He stated that Khalil “supports Hamas” and “hates America,” urging that he be deported.
If unsubstantiated, those allegations are potentially defamatory.
2. CBN’s Coverage
A segment (seen here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1mOz5nFQXEs ), described Khalil as “siding with terrorists” and distributing “pro-Hamas propaganda Flyers.”
Again, if no proof emerges, this coverage risks a defamation claim.
Both Senator Kennedy and the media outlets could be sued by Khalil for making or airing these statements if they lacked a factual basis.
II. Immigration Law & Misapplied Case Law: Why Kennedy’s Analysis Falters
Beyond the defamation concerns, the Trump administration and Senator Kennedy have repeatedly invoked certain immigration precedents to argue that deportation is inevitable and that the Supreme Court will “almost certainly” uphold Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s decision. However, a closer look at the cited cases and the relevant INA provisions shows that this confidence is misplaced—especially given Mahmoud Khalil’s status as an LPR already inside the United States.
A. Kerry v. Din (2015)
Context: Fauzia Din, a U.S. citizen, sued after her husband was denied a visa on unspecified terrorism grounds.
Holding: The Supreme Court reaffirmed the doctrine of consular nonreviewability, stating that visa applicants generally lack the same due process rights as individuals within U.S. territory.
Relevance:
Khalil’s Status: He is a lawful permanent resident physically inside the country, not a visa applicant overseas.
Therefore, Kerry v. Din offers little support for deporting Khalil, as he has far greater constitutional protections than someone seeking initial entry.
B. Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (2010)
Context: Concerned U.S. entities providing training and support to the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE).
Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld the statute banning “material support” to designated terrorist organizations—even if support was for peaceful or nonviolent activities—on the rationale that such help could legitimize or free up resources for terrorist aims.
Relevance: This case focuses on actual, tangible support—training, financial assistance, or direct services to a terrorist group.
The question is whether Khalil engaged in any material support whatsoever. Allegations alone, absent proof, are not enough to meet the standard set by Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project.
If Khalil merely voiced pro-Palestinian views or criticized Israeli policy, that speech is protected. Indeed, the Supreme Court explicitly differentiated independent advocacy and speech from material support.
C. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953)
Context: Ignatz Mezei, an LPR returning from abroad, was excluded and detained without a hearing on national security grounds.
Significance: The Supreme Court upheld “plenary power” and allowed indefinite detention on Ellis Island because Mezei was treated as an arriving alien seeking admission, despite having previously lived in the U.S.
Relevance:
Exclusion vs. Deportation: Mezei involved someone effectively “excluded,” not forcibly deported from within the country.
Mezei’s situation arose before modern statutory changes, and even that older precedent has been narrowed by subsequent cases like Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which recognized more robust due process rights for LPRs already in the United States.
D. Why Deportation Differs from Exclusion
U.S. immigration law historically draws a critical distinction:
Exclusion Cases – Concern individuals seeking entry. Courts have traditionally shown broader deference to the executive.
Deportation Cases – Concern individuals already inside the U.S. LPRs have established constitutional protections, including due process rights.
Because Mahmoud Khalil is living in the United States with LPR status, the government must satisfy procedural due process before deportation. Kennedy’s reliance on older or unrelated case law (especially involving visa applicants or excludable aliens) does not cleanly apply.
III. The INA’s Vagueness and Plenary Power Concerns
A. INA § 237(a)(4)(C) and INA § 212(a)(3)(C)
The Trump administration’s removal action apparently cites a provision of the INA that allows the Secretary of State to determine that a noncitizen’s presence is “adverse to U.S. foreign policy.” This language is broad and has been criticized as unconstitutionally vague by legal scholars and judges—including Judge Maryanne Trump Barry (the president’s sister), who previously ruled that such provisions can violate due process if wielded without adequate checks.
B. Plenary Power: Historical Context and Modern Scrutiny
Plenary power is the doctrine that Congress and the executive branch have broad authority over immigration decisions. Under this doctrine, the courts have often deferred to the political branches on who can enter or remain in the country. Yet, in more recent rulings, the Supreme Court has cautioned that:
Even if the executive and legislature have extensive discretion, individuals inside the U.S. have certain constitutional safeguards, particularly if they are LPRs with established ties to the country.
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) limited indefinite detention of LPRs, emphasizing that due process rights cannot be completely dismissed.
C. Potential for Abuse
Granting the Secretary of State (or any executive official) the power to deport an LPR on vaguely defined “national security” grounds can lead to severe abuses:
Political Retaliation: An administration might target opponents or activists under the pretext of “terrorist sympathies.”
Free Speech Chilling Effect: People, including U.S. citizens, may self-censor if they see the government deporting residents for unpopular political views.
Inconsistency: Future administrations could label entirely different groups as adverse to U.S. interests, perpetuating uncertainty.
Put simply, plenary power can be scary when it lacks transparent, substantive checks. Should Khalil’s case reach the Supreme Court, the justices might well limit or reinterpret such provisions to ensure LPRs receive due process. Court watchers note that the modern Court is more cautious about blindly endorsing indefinite or arbitrary executive power in immigration matters than it was decades ago.
IV. Implications for Mahmoud Khalil and Potential Outcomes
A. Khalil’s Defamation Claims
If no factual basis emerges proving Khalil’s alleged support for Hamas:
1. Against Senator Kennedy
Kennedy spoke on Fox News (and possibly other outlets) outside official Senate proceedings.
Without absolute immunity, any demonstrably false accusations could lead to substantial damages if Khalil can prove actual malice.
2. Against CBN, Fox News, and Other Media Outlets
Outlets that broadcast or repeated statements of Khalil’s “terrorist ties” risk defamation suits unless they exercised due diligence in verifying or disclaiming the claims.
Massive settlements, like those in Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News, show the stark consequences of airing unchecked allegations.
B. Khalil’s Immigration Proceedings
1. Due Process Rights
As an LPR, Khalil is entitled to notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to challenge them in immigration court.
If the government does not produce credible evidence of material support to Hamas, or if it relies solely on “secret” intelligence without adequate judicial review, the deportation case could fail.
2.Potential Judicial Ruling on INA Vagueness
Khalil’s legal team might challenge the constitutionality of the INA’s broad “foreign policy” removal provision.
Courts may find it impermissibly vague, especially where it fails to define what kinds of speech or association trigger deportation.
3. Likelihood of Supreme Court Review
If the case escalates to the Supreme Court, prior rulings on the difference between exclusion and deportation (e.g., Zadvydas v. Davis) and narrower interpretations of plenary power could favor Khalil.
The government would struggle to rely on older or inapplicable precedents like Mezei, Kerry v. Din, or Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project unless it shows direct, material Hamas support.
V. Why Mahmoud Khalil Might Emerge Wealthy and Vindicated
Should Khalil successfully defend himself against deportation and subsequently file defamation suits against those who publicly labeled him a terrorist supporter without evidence, he may become the latest high-profile winner in a long line of defamation settlements. Defendants might include:
High-ranking politicians making public statements.
Major media networks that repeated allegations without substantiation.
Commentators or influencers who used Khalil’s name in association with terrorism.
With the legal bar for defamation satisfied (false statements plus actual malice), courts have historically ordered substantial compensatory and punitive damages. Khalil would not only retain his LPR status but might do so with a sizable financial award.
VI. Conclusion: Balancing Security, Free Speech, and Fair Process
Like I said to a recent commenter on my previous article:
"Look, let's not muddy the waters and stay on topic. We're not talking about liberal this republican that, we'll be here all day. First of all he is not a guest, he is an LPR, which means he is a "Lawful Permanent Resident" with constitutional protections afforded to him. Please show me any evidence where Mahmoud Khalil sympathized with Terrorist organizations.". Please show me "clear and convincing evidence" that he supported Hamas or passed out Pamphlets that support Hamas. If you or anyone can show me clear and convincing evidence which is what the INA requires then I'm all for deporting him. So far I have found this video of him talking about being suspended from the University when he is claiming he was not even part of the encampment or protest. See here: http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Cs522DBn3
Or if you read this article from Tedeo with his released Emails, he claims he followed all laws and University rules from their code of conduct and that it is false accusations from a suspended Jewish former university professor who apparently hates him. See here: https://zeteo.com/scoop-emails-show-
You say "YET, when the likes of Mahmoud Khalil chant “Gas the Jews”, “Death to America”…and advocate for ACTUAL violence"?? Show me where he said this! If he did I get your point, but if you can't show me proof, Can you imagine all the defamation lawsuits Khalil will have if the white house (probably immune) and all the news organizations and people like you can't provide a shred of evidence that he supported Hamas or passed out Hamas pamphlets or said these things? I myself don't support unlawful protests without a permit or taking over buildings. I voted for Trump and support Doge and a whole lot the Trump administration has done. All I'm saying is, as a 28 year section 1983 and constitutional scholar and a civil rights activist who has attended marches and rallies and litigated civil rights cases, get your facts and evidence straight people because I'm scouring the internet and I can't find any clear and convincing evidence that this kid supported Hamas yet. That doesn't mean some clear and convincing evidence isn't out there but so far all I've seen is manufactured evidence and snippets of videos patched together that do not show a deportable offense. The Trump administration could all be rushing to judgement and now fallen victim to groupthink. Show me clear and convincing evidence please.
Please, let's see it. Thanks and God Bless you."
The Mahmoud Khalil controversy underscores profound legal and societal questions:
Defamation Dangers: Public figures and news outlets, even podcasts I like and support like
@bennyjohnson saying Mahmoud Khalil is slapping "death To America" stickers on doors, risk major lawsuits if they cannot back up allegations with solid proof. Is there any video of Khalil slapping death to America stickers on doors?
INA Vagueness and Plenary Power: Overly broad statutes enabling deportation on fuzzy “foreign policy” grounds raise due process alarms, particularly for an LPR already within U.S. borders.
Executive Overreach: Granting the Secretary of State near-unchecked authority to deport individuals based on unproven accusations could have grave implications for free speech and democracy.
If no clear and convincing evidence ties Khalil to Hamas, or proves he distributed Hamas flyers then the calls for his deportation may represent a troubling example of pure hate, government overreach and defamation in the media. The future of Khalil’s case—and by extension, the limits on executive immigration power—will hinge on whether our courts safeguard constitutional protections for LPRs and hold media and politicians accountable for reckless statements. Far from guaranteeing deportation, a misapplied legal theory and a shortage of proof could leave Khalil not just staying in the United States, but eventually becoming a wealthy figurehead of defamation jurisprudence. With that said, If the guy is materially supporting Hamas and it's proven then he's gone and rightly so. But last time I checked the accused in this country were presumed innocent until proven guilty. But that sure doesn't seem to apply in the media or with the secretary of state.
The INA’s Vagueness and Plenary Power Concerns vs. Scripture
Exodus 20:16, commands, "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor". Furthermore, "let everything be established by two or three3. witnesses" is a biblical principle, found in Deuteronomy 19:15 and Matthew 18:16, emphasizing that important matters, especially accusations or charges, should be confirmed by multiple witnesses. It would seem That the ground that
@marcorubio is standing on, whether Mezei (1953) or INA § 237(a)(4)(C) (i), may not only be unconstitutional but also clearly violate the heart of The Lord Jesus Christ and His written Commands.
May The Grace, Mercy, And Peace Of The Lord Jesus Christ Be With You All.
In His Love,
~WLBJ~