The Trump administration is accused of breaking a law built to target the KKK
Mahmoud Khalil, the man detained for more than 100 days by the Trump administration after protesting to end the war in Gaza, is suing the administration, among several other groups, citing a law created to target the Ku Klux Klan.
On Tuesday, Khalil filed a federal lawsuit alleging a coordinated campaign by senior Trump administration officials, leaders of the Heritage Foundation and two surveillance groups, Canary Mission and Betar, CNN reported. The lawsuit states that this “public-private partnership” may violate the Ku Klux Klan Act, which was created after the Civil War to protect newly freed Black Americans from violent persecution by the white supremacist group.
“Collectively, the conspirators’ actions, motivated by their shared unlawful purpose and animus, sought to terrorize and make an example of Mr. Khalil and other noncitizen Palestinians or supporters of Palestinians in order to intimidate and silence the growing movement for Palestinian rights and political freedom, in a manner the KKK Act was designed to proscribe when enacted during Reconstruction,” the lawsuit stated.
What is the KKK Act?
To understand what the Ku Klux Klan Act is, one must travel more than 150 years back to December 1865, just months after the Civil War ended.
Back then, a group of half a dozen former Confederate officers founded the Ku Klux Klan in Pulaski, Tennessee. It began as a social fraternal club for former Confederate soldiers, then rapidly evolved within about a year into a paramilitary organization dedicated to violent white supremacy.
The KKK was responsible for sustained, violent efforts to block Black and Republican voters, who were the more progressive party at the time, from voting. This prevented Black lawmakers from being elected in predominantly Black areas and allowed the passage of laws that unfairly targeted and suppressed Black voters. South Carolina saw the worst outbreak of violence, which prompted lawmakers in Washington to act.
In response to the attacks, President Ulysses S. Grant pushed Congress to enact the Ku Klux Klan Act. Congress passed the act within weeks and handed it to Grant for his prompt signature. The act and the actions taken by the federal government afterward directly contributed to the KKK losing power in southern states.
Three parts of the act remain in use today. Section 1 allows people to sue state and local officials in federal court for violating their constitutional rights. This is a major component of modern civil rights litigation, but it applies only to people who act “under color of state law,” meaning they act with the authority that comes from holding a state or local government position.
Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act originally made it both a civil and criminal infraction for two or more people to conspire to deprive someone of equal protection or equal civil rights. But in 1883, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the criminal part of the law. What remains today is a civil cause of action allowing lawsuits for damages.
A century later, the Supreme Court again ruled in a case brought under this section, stating that it applies to private individuals or groups, not just government officials acting “under color of law.”
Finally, Section 6 creates liability for anyone who knew about a Section 2 conspiracy, had the power to stop it and failed to act. Khalil’s suit relies specifically on Sections 2 and 6, not Section 1. When asked why Section 2 was the right vehicle for the lawsuit, Adina Marx-Arpadi, a justice fellow at the Center for Constitutional Rights, the group that filed the lawsuit on behalf of Khalil, told Straight Arrow the fit was more than symbolic.
“For us, 1985(3) was an obvious fit. The 1870s are both a rhetorical and also doctrinal parallel,” she said. “The statute was enacted in response to racialized violence against Black people, which the Klan was perpetrating in order to terrorize and repress the burgeoning movement for Black civil rights. So, too, are these private actors seeking to terrorize Palestinians and the movement for Palestinian freedom in order to repress it.”
What are Khalil’s arguments against the Trump administration?
Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student, first gained prominence in 2025 when he became a leading voice for students protesting against Israel’s actions in Gaza. In March 2025, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Khalil at his campus apartment despite his being a legal permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen.
He spent 104 days in a Louisiana detention facility, missing his first child’s birth. The Trump administration pushed to quickly deport Khalil, alleging he lied on his green card application. But in June 2025, a federal judge ordered the Trump administration to release Khalil from detention.
Khalil’s lawsuit argues that the Trump administration partnered with far-right and pro-Israel groups to target and silence pro-Palestine protesters. The Guardian reported that Betar, one of the groups named in the lawsuit, publicly took credit for Khalil’s arrest and said it provided “thousands of names” to the administration for similar actions. Betar didn’t immediately respond to Straight Arrow’s request for comment.
The suit also alleged that the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank, and two of its leaders created “Project Esther,” which the lawsuit claims was an effort that “served as the blueprint” for a “public-private partnership” to suppress the growing pro-Palestine movement.
In an emailed statement to Straight Arrow, a Heritage Foundation spokesperson defended the group’s actions.
“Heritage will continue to make policy recommendations as we have for the last 53 years, and will be undeterred by those attempting to silence us,” the spokesperson said.
What happens next?
Despite his release from jail, the Trump administration has continued its efforts to deport Khalil.
In January, a U.S. appeals court panel ruled that the judge who ordered Khalil’s release overstepped his authority, sending his case back to immigration court. Then, in April, the Board of Immigration Appeals — which is part of the Justice Department, not a federal court — denied his bid to dismiss the case and issued a final order of removal.
Khalil’s attorneys said they plan to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the case.
Round out your reading
- With more prison space than prisoners, correctional facilities are shutting down.
- ‘Game changer’: New cancer treatment turns major surgery into an outpatient procedure.
- Viewers overwhelmingly support ‘The View’s’ fight against the FCC. Will that matter?
- Why an ICE shooting in Houston isn’t leading to mass protests.
- Milwaukee detective is the latest officer charged with misusing Flock cameras.
Ella Rae Greene, Editor In Chief
