Unsealed State Dept. Memos Show Officials Knew Pro-Palestine Student Deportations Lacked Legal Footing

Since our coverage of the federal judge's order releasing Salah Sarsour from ICE detention on June 19, a separate but directly related development has sharpened the legal picture considerably. On Thursday, a federal judge unsealed hundreds of pages of internal State Department and DHS memos that were evidence in a related lawsuit. The documents are direct about what officials knew.

The documents concerned five individuals the Trump administration sought to deport: Columbia University activists Mahmoud Khalil and Yunseo Chung, Turkish researcher Rümeysa Öztürk, academic Badar Khan Suri, and Mohsen Mahdawi. Their lawsuit alleged the deportation orders violated First Amendment protections. They won the case. The memos were kept under seal at the State Department's request until outlets including The Intercept, the Boston Globe, and others litigated for their release, according to reporting by the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Truthout.

What the Memos Actually Say

A March 8 DHS memo, cited in the documents, is direct: "DHS has not identified any alternative grounds of removability that would be applicable to Chung and Khalil, including the ground of removability for aliens who have provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity."

The same memo acknowledges the administration had no precedent to lean on. Officials wrote they were "not aware of any prior exercises of the Secretary's removal authority" under the relevant section of the Immigration and Nationality Act, and that courts were likely to scrutinize the basis for these decisions given the students' lawful permanent resident status.

The following day, March 9, Rubio posted on X: "We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported," directly referencing Khalil's arrest.

His own department's memo, dated the day before, said the opposite of what he claimed publicly.

The Rubio Defense

The strongest argument for the administration's position is that the "foreign policy risk" provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act — Section 237(a)(4)(C) — does not require proof of material support for a terror group. Under that authority, the Secretary of State can declare a noncitizen deportable if their presence is deemed to have "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio exercised exactly that authority, and he personally signed memos to DHS invoking it, according to the Guardian's reporting on the parallel Sarsour case.

Rubio's memos cited Sarsour's board membership with American Muslims for Palestine, which the memo accused of "activities providing funds to Hamas." That is a specific factual allegation, not merely a disagreement with someone's speech. If any of those factual allegations were proven, the legal picture would shift. Courts have not yet rendered a final verdict on every element of the underlying merits.

Where the Memos Undercut That Defense

Its own internal documents do not appear to rely on those factual allegations to justify removal. They rely on the public advocacy itself, protest activity, op-eds, organizing for Palestinian rights. The Lemkin Institute noted that in every case reviewed, the memos pointed to some form of advocacy for Palestinian rights, not documented financial transfers or operational ties to Hamas.

The judge overseeing the student lawsuit reportedly called the campaign "unconstitutional" last week, according to Truthout's coverage. Truthout's framing emphasizes the word "genocide" in describing Israeli military operations in Gaza, which is contested terminology that goes beyond what U.S. courts or the federal government have officially determined. That framing does not change the core documented fact: the memos say what they say.

The Pattern Across Cases

The Sarsour release and the student deportation documents are legally distinct but factually connected. In both situations, a federal judge found the government's national-security framing was not supported by the government's own evidence. U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon, in ordering Sarsour's release on Thursday, found that officials probably detained him in retaliation for his First Amendment-protected speech, according to the Guardian.

Sarsour lost 30 pounds during nearly three months in Clay County Jail in Indiana. ICE placed him there after plainclothes officers from at least 10 unmarked vehicles arrested him on March 30. His legal team told the court his diabetes management consisted of blood-sugar checks once a month.

No criminal charges were filed against Sarsour. No investigation announced by the Justice Department targets the individuals who authorized his detention.

What Remains Unresolved

The students won their case, but the underlying legal question, how far the Secretary of State's "foreign policy risk" removal authority actually extends under Section 237(a)(4)(C), has not been definitively settled by a higher court. The administration could appeal, or attempt to use the same authority in future cases with different evidentiary records. That unresolved boundary is what the next stage of this litigation will likely define.