An immigration judge in Louisiana found Friday that the Trump administration could deport Mahmoud Khalil, granting the government an early victory in its efforts to crack down on pro-Palestinian demonstrations on U.S. college campuses.

The ruling is far from the final word on whether Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident, will be deported. His lawyers will continue their fight in Louisiana and New Jersey, arguing that he has been targeted for constitutionally protected speech.

For the time being, the decision by the judge, Jamee E. Comans, affirmed the extraordinary power that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted to target any noncitizen for deportation.

In Khalil’s case, Rubio relied on a rarely cited law, declaring that the Columbia graduate’s presence in the United States was adverse to American foreign policy interests. Comans found that the government had met the burden of evidence the law requires.

Immigration judges are employees of the executive branch, not the judiciary, and often approve the Homeland Security Department’s deportation efforts. It would be unusual for such a judge, serving the U.S. attorney general, to grapple with the constitutional questions raised by Khalil’s case. She would also run the risk of being fired by an administration that has targeted dissenters.

“This court is without jurisdiction to entertain challenges to the validity of this law under the Constitution,” Comans said as she delivered her ruling. She denied requests from Khalil’s lawyers, who had asked to cross-examine or depose Rubio so that he could elaborate on his claims.

At the end of the hearing, Khalil, who was otherwise silent, criticized the judge harshly.

“I would like to quote what you said last time that there’s nothing that’s more important to this court than due process rights and fundamental fairness,” he said. “Clearly, what we witnessed today, neither of these principles were present today or in this whole process. This is exactly why the Trump administration has sent me to this court, 1,000 miles away from my family.”

“This is not over, and our fight continues,” Marc Van Der Hout, a lawyer for Khalil, said in a statement after the hearing. “If Mahmoud can be targeted in this way, simply for speaking out for Palestinians and exercising his constitutionally protected right to free speech, this can happen to anyone over any issue the Trump administration dislikes.”

Khalil’s immigration case now moves on to what is known as the “relief stage,” in which his lawyers will be able to argue for his right to stay in the country. If they lose there, they can appeal, first to an immigration board and then to a federal appeals court.

But the free speech and due process issues that loom over the case may first be scrutinized in federal court in New Jersey, where Khalil’s lawyers are also fighting for his release. The judge overseeing that case in Newark, N.J., Michael Farbiarz, has ordered the government not to remove Khalil from the country.

Judge sides with ICE over religious groups

Meanwhile Friday, a federal judge on Friday sided with the Trump administration in allowing immigration agents to conduct enforcement operations at houses of worship for now, despite a lawsuit filed by religious groups over the new policy.

U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich in Washington refused to grant a preliminary injunction to the plaintiffs, more than two dozen Christian and Jewish groups representing millions of Americans.

She found that the plaintiffs lack standing, or the legal right to sue, since only a handful of immigration enforcement actions have been conducted in or around churches or other houses of worship and that the evidence at this point doesn’t show “that places of worship are being singled out as special targets.”

The plaintiffs are reviewing the decision and assessing their options, said their lead counsel, Kelsi Corkran.

“We remain gravely concerned about the impacts of this policy and are committed to protecting foundational rights enshrined in the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act,” said Corkran, the Supreme Court Director at the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection.

The religious groups argued the policy violated the right to practice their religion. Since President Donald Trump took office in January, attendance has declined significantly, with some areas showing double-digit percentage drops, they said.

The judge, though, found that the groups had not shown their drops were definitively linked to the church policy specifically, as opposed to broader increased actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement or other agencies.

“That evidence suggests that congregants are staying home to avoid encountering ICE in their own neighborhoods, not because churches or synagogues are locations of elevated risk,” wrote Friedrich, who was appointed by the Republican president during his first term.

That means that simply reversing the policy on houses of worship wouldn’t necessarily mean immigrants would return to church, she found.

This report includes information from the Associated Press.