On Thursday, lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil said they would seek testimony from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Halil, a Columbia University alumnus who led the pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus last year, has been detained by the government for more than a month. He was holding a hearing at Louisiana immigration court on Friday, and his lawyers are unlikely to grant a judge's request to contact Rubio.
However, they said the lack of justification for Halil's detention other than Rubio's claims made it even more important that the secretary be forced to answer the questions of the deposit.
“Mr. Halil has the right under a legitimate process of facing evidence against him, and that's what we want to investigate Secretary of State Rubio,” said one of his lawyers, Mark van der Hout.
The State Department did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
The lawyer's remarks came at a news briefing the day after the Department of Homeland Security submitted evidence of the case to deport Mr Halil. The incident raised major questions about freedom of speech and legitimate procedures during President Trump's second term.
Halil's lawyers said the evidence submitted by the department, including an undated memo from Rubio, did not provide additional justification for the Trump administration's debate over Halil's deportation.
The first memo obtained by the Associated Press did not accuse Mr. Halil, a Palestinian and a legal permanent resident who married American citizens, of criminal conduct. Instead, as reported, the administration cited a rarely used law that allowed the Secretary of State to commence deportation proceedings against those who could reasonably consider the threat to US foreign policy, in this case anti-Semitism.
Mr. Halil was very prominent as he represented a coalition of student organizations in negotiations with the school during the campus protests in Columbia last year.
In a public statement, the Department of Homeland Security said Halil was “in line with Hamas,” but the White House accused him of “being with terrorists.” However, even in the publication of Rubio's memos, no evidence has been publicly provided to demonstrate these allegations.
Homeland Security has also submitted evidence related to other allegations against Halil. It concerns whether Halil disclosed his membership in several organizations, including the United Nations agency supporting Palestinian refugees, when he applied for a permanent residency in the United States last March.
A department spokesperson declined to provide that or other evidence, noting that “immigration court dockets are not available to the public.”
Van Der Hout denied those allegations and called them “fakes.”
“Rubio's letter is the only evidence that goes to a major accusation in this case,” he said.
Halil was arrested in Manhattan last month and was soon transferred to Louisiana, where he is in custody. He and his wife, Dr. Noor Abdallah, are looking forward to a child this month.
Jamee E. Comans, the judge who oversaw his immigration case, shows that he does not believe it is her role to determine the constitutionality of the laws Rubio is citing. Instead, at a hearing on Friday, she is expected to determine whether the evidence provided by the government meets the requirements of the rarely used laws cited, and therefore whether Halil can be deported.
Even if she allowed the government to deport Mr. Halil, he would not be taken away from the country any time soon.
While his immigration case is underway in Louisiana, efforts to combat the constitutionality of his detention are unfolding before federal judges in New Jersey. That judge, Michael Fabiartz, ordered the government not to remove Mr Khalil until he otherwise controls.
