Immigration Judge Allows Deportation of Milwaukee Mosque President on Foreign Policy Grounds

In a decision that has reignited concerns over the limits of free speech for non-citizens, a United States immigration judge has ruled that Salah Sarsour, the president of Wisconsin's largest mosque, can be deported from the country he has called home for over three decades. The ruling, handed down on Wednesday, marks a significant development in a case that has drawn national attention from civil rights groups, faith leaders, and advocates for Palestinian rights. Sarsour, a Palestinian-born green card holder, has long been a prominent figure within Milwaukee's Islamic community. As president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee, he has played a central role in his congregation for years, often serving as a public voice for his community. However, that visibility has come under intense scrutiny from the Trump administration, which has sought to remove him based upon his political speech regarding Palestine, a move his supporters argue is retaliatory in nature. At the heart of the judge's ruling was a memo issued in June 2025 by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. In it, Rubio declared that Sarsour's presence in the United States carried "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences," specifically arguing that his actions undermined the administration's goal of combating antisemitism around the world. The memo was issued under a rarely used provision of immigration law, which allows the Secretary of State to pursue deportation of a non-citizen on foreign policy grounds. Judge Jayme Salinardi cited this memo as a central reason for allowing Sarsour's removal. This legal mechanism has become a hallmark of the Trump administration's approach towards pro-Palestinian activists within the country. It has been utilized against other high-profile figures, including Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, both of whom have faced deportation proceedings under the same provision. According to Sarsour's attorney, Patrick Taurel, the judge felt bound by a prior ruling in Khalil's case, which held that a letter from the Secretary of State alone could be sufficient to establish deportability on foreign policy grounds. As a result, Salinardi did not examine the underlying evidence behind Rubio's determination, instead giving extreme deference to the memo itself. Despite granting the government's request for deportability, the ruling was not a total victory for the administration. Judge Salinardi rejected two of its central allegations against Sarsour. First, he dismissed the claim that Sarsour had lied on his green card application. Secondly, the judge rejected the accusation that Sarsour had falsely claimed to be a United States citizen in order to vote. These findings, according to Taurel, were notable, as they removed two of the government's attempts to criminalize Sarsour outside of his speech. However, the most contentious aspect of the government's argument against him lies in decades-old convictions from Israel. US authorities have pointed to two separate convictions against Sarsour: one from 1988, in which he confessed to throwing stones and a Molotov cocktail at Israeli military personnel, and another from 1995, over an attempt to hold weapons. The Trump administration has cited these convictions in its appeal of his release, arguing that they make him a security threat to the United States. Sarsour has long denied both offenses, with his lawyers asserting that his confessions were obtained through torture at the time. His former attorney, Jawad Boulos, testified to this in August, stating that Sarsour was coerced into signing the confessions and was never convicted of an offense connected to a designated terrorist organization. These Israeli convictions were also the justification used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain Sarsour earlier this year. He was arrested by ICE officers in Milwaukee in March, nine months after Rubio's memo was issued. His detention sparked immediate outrage from a wide array of organizations, with rights groups and Milwaukee leaders alike condemning the arrest as a politically motivated action. For 81 days, Sarsour remained in ICE custody, with his fate uncertain as his legal battles began to unfold. That changed in June, when a federal judge ordered his release from detention. In their ruling, the federal judge expressed skepticism over the timing of his detention, questioning why convictions that had been known to US authorities for decades were suddenly being used to justify taking him into custody. The judge found there was a "substantial" case to suggest the government was retaliating against Sarsour for his outspoken advocacy for Palestinian rights. This release allowed him to return to his community, at least for the time being. The Trump administration, however, has not backed down from its efforts to keep him detained. It has since appealed the federal judge's order releasing Sarsour, once again citing his Israeli convictions as a national security concern. Despite this ongoing appeal, Sarsour remains out of ICE custody for now. His attorney has stated that, due to his ongoing immigration proceedings and impending appeals, he will remain in the United States for the "foreseeable future," regardless of the deportability ruling. For his part, Sarsour has expressed deep disappointment with the immigration judge's decision, but has remained steadfast in his resolve. In statements to The Associated Press, he vowed to continue fighting to defend both his right to free speech, as well as his ability to stay in the country that he has called home for over 30 years. His legal team shares that determination, with Taurel adamantly rejecting the ruling, stating that the evidence presented only compels one conclusion: that Sarsour is not deportable, and that he should be given his green card back with an apology for what he has endured. Looking ahead, Sarsour's legal fight is far from over. His attorneys now have 60 days to argue that deporting him would put him at risk of torture, a claim that, if successful, could protect him from removal under the Convention Against Torture. Should they lose that argument, they intend to appeal the deportability ruling itself. Critically, Taurel has confirmed that Sarsour cannot be deported while any of these appeals remain pending, providing him a window to continue his fight in the courts. The implications of this case stretch far beyond Milwaukee. The use of the Secretary of State's foreign policy authority to target non-citizens based upon their political speech has raised serious constitutional concerns amongst legal experts and advocacy organizations. By granting broad deference to the executive branch on these determinations, immigration courts are now being placed in a position where the reasoning behind such a memo may never be meaningfully reviewed, a precedent that advocates fear could be expanded to silence dissent. Ultimately, the case of Salah Sarsour exists at the crossroads of immigration, foreign policy, and the First Amendment. While the ruling allows for his deportation in theory, the road to removal is riddled with procedural protections and appeals. For now, the focus remains not on when he may be removed, but whether the United States will allow political beliefs to become grounds for exile for a man who, for more than three decades, has built his life within its borders.