Musk’s AI: Constitutional rights violation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia University graduate

I prompted Elon Musk’s Grok AI 3.0, “You are a constitutional scholar. Review recent news about Mahmoud Khalil. Have his constitutional rights been violated? Here is the response:

As a constitutional scholar, I’ll evaluate the recent news surrounding Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on March 9, 2025, and assess whether his constitutional rights may have been violated based on the available information. Today is March 10, 2025, and the situation is still unfolding, so my analysis relies on the most current reports and legal principles, with the caveat that additional facts could shift the conclusion.

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and recent Columbia University graduate, was arrested by ICE agents at his university-owned apartment in New York. He is a lawful permanent resident (LPR) with a green card, not a student visa holder, despite initial claims by ICE that his student visa was being revoked. Reports indicate he was detained under President Trump’s executive orders targeting antisemitism, with allegations that he supported Hamas — a designated terrorist organization — through his leadership in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia. Khalil is currently held at the LaSalle Detention Facility in Louisiana, and his attorney, Amy Greer, has filed a habeas corpus petition challenging the arrest’s validity. Civil rights groups, including the New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), argue this is a retaliatory attack on his First Amendment rights.

Let’s break this down by examining the relevant constitutional protections and how they apply:

First Amendment: Freedom of Speech and Assembly

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the right to peaceably assemble. Khalil’s role as a protest leader at Columbia, advocating for Palestinian rights, falls squarely within these protections. Permanent residents like Khalil enjoy First Amendment rights nearly equivalent to U.S. citizens, as established in cases like Bridges v. Wixon (1945), where the Supreme Court recognized that LPRs are entitled to constitutional safeguards for expressive activities.

Reports suggest Khalil’s detention stems from his protest activities, with the Trump administration alleging ties to Hamas. However, no evidence has been publicly presented showing that his speech incited imminent violence or constituted a “true threat” — the narrow exceptions to First Amendment protection (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 1969; Watts v. United States, 1969). If his arrest was indeed retaliation for constitutionally protected speech, as the NYCLU and others assert, it would violate the First Amendment. The government cannot punish or deport someone solely for political expression, even if it’s controversial or offensive, without crossing into authoritarian territory.

The administration’s claim of Hamas support could justify action if substantiated — material support for a terrorist group isn’t protected speech (Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 2010). But absent specific evidence (e.g., financial contributions or direct coordination), protest leadership alone doesn’t meet this threshold. The lack of transparency about the charges or evidence against Khalil raises red flags. If this is a pretext to silence dissent, it’s a textbook First Amendment violation.

Fifth Amendment: Due Process

The Fifth Amendment ensures that no person is deprived of liberty without due process of law. As an LPR, Khalil has robust due process rights (Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 1953). Revoking a green card or detaining an LPR typically requires a formal process, including notice, a hearing before an immigration judge, and a chance to contest the grounds — often tied to criminal convictions or immigration violations (Zadvydas v. Davis, 2001).

Here, ICE reportedly acted on a State Department order to revoke Khalil’s green card, but no court proceeding or criminal conviction has been mentioned. Elora Mukherjee, a Columbia Law professor, noted to The New York Times that green card revocation is rare without a judicial process and cannot legally be based on protected speech. If ICE detained Khalil without a warrant or immediate judicial oversight, and if the revocation lacks a clear legal basis beyond his activism, this could violate procedural due process. The filing of a habeas corpus petition by his attorney underscores this concern — habeas is a critical remedy when detention appears unlawful (Boumediene v. Bush, 2008).

Substantive due process might also be implicated. Punishing someone for exercising a fundamental right like free speech through immigration enforcement could be deemed “shocking to the conscience” (Rochin v. California, 1952), though courts are often deferential to the executive in immigration matters (Trump v. Hawaii, 2018). Still, LPRs aren’t as vulnerable to summary action as non-residents, so the government’s haste here is suspect.

Fourth Amendment: Unreasonable Seizure

The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable seizures. ICE’s entry into Khalil’s apartment and his arrest raise questions about whether agents had a warrant. Columbia has not confirmed whether a warrant was presented, and some reports suggest plainclothes DHS agents seized him without standard procedure (e.g., Miranda rights, though not constitutionally required for immigration detention). If no warrant existed and exigent circumstances weren’t present, his arrest could violate the Fourth Amendment (Payton v. New York, 1980). However, immigration enforcement often operates under looser standards than criminal law, so this hinges on specifics not yet public.

Immigration Authority vs. Constitutional Limits

The government has broad plenary power over immigration (Kleindienst v. Mandel, 1972), but this isn’t absolute for LPRs. Deportation or detention must comply with constitutional norms (INS v. Chadha, 1983). Trump’s executive order on antisemitism, cited by DHS, doesn’t inherently override Khalil’s rights unless it’s tied to a lawful basis for removal (e.g., a crime). Claims by officials like Tom Homan that Khalil violated visa terms by “locking down buildings” don’t align with his LPR status — green cards don’t have such conditions — and no criminal charges have surfaced to support this.

Assessment

Based on current information, Khalil’s constitutional rights likely have been violated if his detention is solely retaliation for protected speech and lacks due process. The First Amendment breach is the most glaring: targeting a green card holder for protest leadership, without evidence of unprotected conduct, is a direct assault on free expression. The Fifth Amendment concern is nearly as strong — detaining an LPR without a clear legal process or public justification smells of arbitrariness. The Fourth Amendment issue is less certain but troubling if the arrest lacked a warrant.

That said, the government might argue national security or immigration authority justifies its actions. If they can prove Khalil provided material support to Hamas or committed deportable offenses, the calculus changes — but they’ve shown no such evidence yet. The opacity of the process and the timing (linked to a new executive order) suggest political motives over legal ones, which courts have historically scrutinized (Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 1993).

This case echoes historical overreaches — like the Palmer Raids or McCarthyism — where dissent was stifled under security pretexts. Without more facts, it’s premature to say definitively, but the available narrative points to a violation of Khalil’s rights. Courts will likely weigh in soon via his habeas petition, and I’d expect scrutiny of ICE’s actions given the constitutional stakes.

What do you think — should the government have to disclose its evidence publicly before detaining someone like Khalil?