The ban on computers gave the government an unfair advantage in the case of the anti-war activist, the lawyer claims.

An attorney from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) who is overseeing a notable deportation case in Louisiana reported that she was prevented from bringing her electronic devices just before a crucial hearing. This restriction hindered her access to evidence and court records that, nevertheless, were available to the three government attorneys present in the courtroom, who had laptops authorized by the court.

Louisiana immigration judge Jamee Comans decided at the end of the previous month that Columbia graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was eligible for deportation. At the same hearing, Khalil's attorney, Nora Ahmed, argued that she was barred from entering the courtroom with her laptop despite having previously submitted the necessary documentation and being a regular visitor to the immigration center. "There should be no advantage, whether big or small, granted to one party over the other," stated Ahmed, adding that this could affect the fairness of judicial proceedings.

The U.S. government has not filed charges against Khalil, who holds a green card and whose wife and newborn child were born in the country. However, the government acknowledged last month that Khalil was detained without a warrant due to "urgent circumstances," arguing that he was a "flight risk." Following his arrest at his university residence in New York on March 8, he was transferred to the ICE Processing Center in Central Louisiana, a for-profit prison run by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), where his situation is managed under a court system that bears little resemblance to that of citizens.

The vast majority of individuals fighting against deportation cannot afford legal representation and do not have recognized rights to legal assistance. This notably includes thousands of unaccompanied children who enter the U.S. each year. The political influence in this system is considerable, as it operates under the Department of Justice and is subject to the decisions of the sitting president.

In an uncommon turn of events, on April 8, Judge Comans ordered the expulsion of nearly 600 people attempting to observe one of Khalil's hearings via videoconference, allowing only his attorneys or his wife access. Ahmed, who is the legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana, argued against this increased secrecy on April 11.

In the detention area, the use of electronic devices is strictly prohibited, but Ahmed had submitted documentation the night before to allow her, as Khalil's legal representative, to enter the courtroom with her laptop in accordance with EOIR policy. Despite this, in a sworn statement, Ahmed stated that minutes before the hearing began, detention center staff informed her that, by order of Comans, she was prohibited from bringing her devices, forcing her to hand them over and enter the courtroom unprepared.

During the hearing, Khalil faced three attorneys from the Department of Homeland Security, each with their own laptop. Ahmed expressed that access to technology is critical for interacting with the client and responding in real-time to evidence that may be discussed by the opposing party.

Michelle Méndez, an attorney with the National Immigration Project, stated that the asymmetry in access to technology and resources between the government and non-citizens reflects who controls the process. Furthermore, since February 2022, the Department of Justice has required all immigration attorneys to submit documents electronically, which has established an expectation that attorneys will rely on digital access for their submissions, despite the risk of interruptions due to judicial system overload.

After the hearing, Ahmed contacted the warden of the detention center, Shad Rice, who told her that the judge "seemed to contradict herself" by blaming the center's staff for the prohibition. In the following week, Ahmed worked to ensure that the prohibition policy would not continue. While the warden informed her that there would be no attempts to strip her of her devices in the future, the judge retained the authority to limit access to any devices deemed unnecessary.

Ahmed filed a motion stating that courts have long recognized the obligation of prison officials not to impede communication between a lawyer and their client, emphasizing that the lack of access to her devices during the hearing not only contradicted DOJ policy but also fundamental notions of fairness that govern the legal system.

Khalil continues to face a complex case, which is currently at a standstill due to a recent decision by a U.S. District Judge in New Jersey that dismissed the Trump administration's effort to prevent Khalil from suing the government. In that ruling, the judge determined that the government did not have the authority to prevent the court from reviewing Khalil's claims, in which he accuses the U.S. of unlawful detention due to his political views, in violation of the First Amendment. In response, his wife, Noor Abdalla, expressed relief at the ruling and her commitment to continue advocating for her husband's freedom.