Judicial restraint, this was not.

In a sweeping order defying settled law, Judge Michael Farbiarz—a Biden nominee championed by Senator Cory Booker—halted the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil. The ruling is not merely legally flawed—it is an impudent attempt by a single district judge to usurp the constitutional authority of both Congress and the Executive over immigration and foreign policy.

Khalil’s removal was authorized under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (INA), which empowers the Executive to deport noncitizens whose presence undermines U.S. foreign policy interests. That statutory authority—delegated to the Secretary of State—encompasses exactly Khalil’s case.

Instead of exercising judicial restraint, Judge Farbiarz cast doubt on the constitutionality of the INA’s foreign policy provision itself—suggesting that its use in Khalil’s case may violate the First Amendment.

If the INA were truly constitutionally defective, it would fall to appellate courts to make that call—not a single trial judge reaching beyond precedent to impose personal doubts in place of settled doctrine.

The notion that this provision—applied sparingly by every administration—suddenly offends the Constitution when invoked under President Trump reveals more about the judge’s perspective than it does about the law.

Judge Farbiarz’s decision to block the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil stands not only in tension with statutory law—it runs headlong into decades of binding precedent.

As the Supreme Court affirmed in Harisiades v.........

© American Thinker