US Immigration Judge Rules Milwaukee Mosque Leader Salah Sarsour Deportable Under Rarely Used Foreign Policy Law

A United States immigration judge has determined that Salah Sarsour, the president of Wisconsin's largest mosque, can be removed from the country under a seldom-invoked legal provision that President Donald Trump's administration has increasingly deployed against non-citizens who advocate for Palestinian rights. The ruling, issued Wednesday by Judge Jayme Salinardi, represents a significant development in a case that has drawn attention from civil liberties advocates and Muslim community leaders across the country.

Sarsour, who was born in Palestine and has resided in the United States for over thirty years, serves as president of the Islamic Society of Milwaukee. He responded to the decision with visible disappointment, telling The Associated Press that he found the outcome "deeply disappointing" and vowing to continue his legal battle. "I will continue fighting to defend the right to free speech and to stay in the country I have called home for more than three decades," he stated.

The ruling rests substantially on a memorandum issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, which asserted that Sarsour's activities "undermine US foreign policy to combat antisemitism around the world." This determination formed part of the basis for Salinardi's conclusion that Sarsour is deportable, according to his legal team. The case highlights the extraordinary weight that a single cabinet official's declaration can carry in immigration proceedings.

Patrick Taurel, Sarsour's attorney, expressed strong disagreement with the court's decision during a press briefing Wednesday. He emphasized that the evidence presented during proceedings pointed clearly toward a different conclusion. "I wish the world could see the evidence that we presented and hear the testimony that the court heard because the case we presented compels only one conclusion, which is that Salah is not deportable," Taurel said. He added that his client "has done nothing wrong" and should have his green card restored, accompanied by an official apology.

The practical consequences of the ruling are not immediate. Sarsour will not be deported right away, as his legal representatives have sixty days to present arguments that removal would expose him to torture—a claim that could shield him from deportation under the Convention Against Torture. Should they fail in that effort, Taurel indicated they intend to appeal the decision. During the pendency of any appeal, Sarsour cannot be removed from the United States and will remain in the country for the "foreseeable future," according to his lawyer.

The legal mechanism at the heart of the case is a rarely-used statute that permits the Secretary of State to seek deportation of non-citizens whose continued presence could produce "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Rubio invoked this provision in a memo dated June 2025, declaring Sarsour deportable on foreign policy grounds. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers subsequently detained Sarsour in Milwaukee in March, approximately nine months after the secretary's memo was issued.

The same legal provision has been employed against other pro-Palestinian activists, including Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi, signaling a broader pattern in the administration's approach to non-citizens engaged in advocacy related to Palestinian rights. Khalil's case, in particular, has generated significant legal precedent that directly influenced the outcome of Sarsour's proceedings.

Sarsour's legal team criticized the "extreme deference" that Judge Salinardi extended to Rubio's memo. Taurel explained that the judge felt constrained by an earlier ruling in Khalil's case, which established that a letter from the Secretary of State could suffice to render someone deportable on foreign policy grounds. This interpretation meant Salinardi could not examine the evidence underlying Rubio's decision. "If the Secretary of State says the person is deportable, it is game over," Taurel told reporters.

The government did not succeed on every argument it advanced. Salinardi rejected the allegation that Sarsour had provided false information on his green card application. Additionally, according to Taurel, the judge dismissed a claim that Sarsour had falsely asserted US citizenship for the purpose of voting. These rejections represent at least a partial victory for Sarsour's defense, even as the core deportation determination went against him.

Beyond the immigration case, Sarsour is separately challenging the Trump administration in federal court regarding his detention while deportation proceedings were ongoing. A federal judge ordered his release from ICE custody in June following eighty-one days of detention, questioning why decades-old convictions that US authorities had long known about suddenly provided justification for holding him. The judge found a "substantial" case existed that the government was retaliating against Sarsour for speaking out about Palestinian rights—a finding that raises serious concerns about the use of immigration enforcement to suppress political speech.

The Trump administration has appealed the release order, contending that Sarsour's convictions in Israel render him a security threat. Sarsour was imprisoned in 1988 after confessing to throwing stones and a Molotov cocktail at Israeli military personnel, and was convicted again in 1995 in connection with an attempt to hold weapons. These decades-old matters form the basis of the government's security argument, though Sarsour's legal team disputes their significance and the circumstances surrounding them.

Sarsour denies committing the offenses underlying those convictions. His lawyers maintain that the confessions were extracted through torture. Jawad Boulos, Sarsour's former attorney, testified in August that Sarsour was coerced into signing confessions and was not convicted of any offense linking him to a "terrorist" organization. This testimony seeks to undermine the government's characterization of Sarsour as a security risk and to cast doubt on the reliability of the historical convictions.

Al Jazeera reached out to both the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security for comment on the ruling but did not receive responses before publication. The silence from these agencies leaves questions unanswered regarding the government's rationale and the broader implications of the decision for other non-citizens facing similar deportation efforts.

The case against Sarsour fits within a wider pattern of immigration enforcement actions targeting individuals who have expressed support for Palestinian rights. The use of the foreign policy deportation provision against activists has alarmed civil liberties organizations, which view it as an attempt to penalize protected speech through immigration law. The outcome of Sarsour's appeals—both regarding the deportation ruling and the retaliation finding in his detention case—could establish important precedents for how far the government can go in using immigration mechanisms against political advocacy.

For now, Sarsour remains in the United States, permitted to stay while his legal challenges proceed. His lawyers are preparing arguments under the Convention Against Torture and planning an appeal should those arguments fail. The case continues to test the boundaries between national security prerogatives, foreign policy authority, and constitutional protections for speech and due process.