The recent ruling by U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford to release Columbia University student activist Mohsen Mahdawi from ICE custody has stirred up a national hornet’s nest. With tensions already high on college campuses over the Israel-Hamas conflict, this decision has thrown gasoline on the fire, igniting debates about free speech, immigration enforcement, antisemitism, and national security.

As an independent Christian conservative, I believe in the rule of law, the sanctity of free speech, strong borders, and unwavering support for our constitutional values. But that doesn’t mean the answers are always easy. This case is complicated, and it’s worth a closer, honest look from all sides.

The Case for the Judge’s Decision

Judge Crawford ruled that Mahdawi’s arrest by ICE—conveniently timed after his participation in pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia—may have been retaliatory and a violation of his First Amendment rights. In the United States of America, we don’t punish people for speech we dislike. At least we’re not supposed to.

Mahdawi is a lawful permanent resident who has not been charged with a crime. His supporters, including some Jewish and Israeli students, claim he’s a peaceful activist who promotes dialogue, not violence. That carries weight, especially in a climate where it’s easy to lump every Palestinian voice in with extremism. If there’s no credible evidence of criminal conduct, then detaining him based on protest involvement alone isn’t justice—it’s censorship in a federal suit.

And while his views may make many Americans uncomfortable, especially his support for Gaza and criticism of Israel, that discomfort doesn’t override constitutional protections. Freedom of speech means protecting unpopular opinions—even if we strongly disagree with them. If it didn’t, Christian voices wouldn’t stand a chance on most college campuses today.

The Case Against the Judge’s Decision

That said, the concerns from the Trump administration and ICE aren’t coming out of thin air. Back in 2015, Mahdawi allegedly made an anti-Semitic comment in a Vermont gun store—claiming he “used to kill Jews in Palestine.” That’s not just crass; that’s horrifying. He denies it, there were no charges filed, and it’s unclear if there’s any proof beyond hearsay—but the allegation itself is understandably alarming.

The government argued that Mahdawi’s views and actions might pose a national security risk. While that’s a slippery slope if based purely on political views, it’s not unreasonable for immigration officials to scrutinize non-citizens closely, especially those with controversial political involvement. Being a permanent resident doesn’t mean you’re entitled to citizenship. There’s a vetting process for a reason.

There’s also a broader issue here: America has every right to protect its borders and its citizens. If someone is a legitimate threat, we don’t need to wait for a catastrophe to act. It’s a tough line to walk—between precaution and persecution—but it’s one we have to keep walking carefully.

My Take

Let me be clear: I am a strong supporter of Israel. I believe the Jewish people have a God-given right to live in peace and security in their ancestral homeland. I believe America has a moral obligation to stand with Israel as a friend and ally. But here’s the other side of that coin: in a free country, people have the right to criticize Israel, just as they have the right to criticize America. That’s not disloyalty—it’s liberty.

If we start deporting people simply because they express pro-Palestinian views or criticize Israeli policy, we’re not defending our values—we’re betraying them. The moment we let fear shut down free speech is the moment we lose the moral high ground we claim to defend.

Romans 13 teaches that government is supposed to be a “minister of God to thee for good.” But locking someone up without charges, based on what amounts to bad optics and unpopular opinions, isn’t “for good.” It’s governmental overreach—and it opens the door for all kinds of abuse. Today it’s a pro-Palestinian activist; tomorrow it might be a pro-life pastor or a conservative homeschool mom. Let’s not pretend this power won’t be used against us when the political winds change.

Now, if credible evidence emerges that Mahdawi has links to violence or terrorism, the government has not only the right but the duty to act. But as of now, all we’ve seen are allegations, innuendo, and an unfortunate lack of due process.

As Christians, we must remember Micah 6:8—“He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?” Justice without mercy turns into tyranny. Mercy without justice becomes chaos. We need both. And in this case, mercy means upholding Mahdawi’s rights unless the law—clearly and convincingly—says otherwise.

So yes, let’s stay vigilant. Let’s be wise in defending our values and unwavering in our support for Israel. But in doing so, let’s not surrender the very freedoms that make this country worth defending. The Constitution doesn’t bend depending on who’s speaking—it stands firm for all. Judge Crawford’s ruling may ruffle feathers, but it ultimately reaffirms the rule of law and the rights that shield every one of us, regardless of our politics. And that, as I see it, is not just the legal choice—it’s the right one.