Mahmoud Khalil Sues Columbia Over Discrimination and Harassment Response
Mahmoud Khalil sued Columbia University on Sept. 14, 2026, accusing the university of anti-Palestinian discrimination, indifference to harassment and retaliation. The action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Guardian
The plaintiffs are Khalil and members of the Palestine Working Group at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs, or SIPA. The defendants are Columbia University, its board and SIPA dean Keren Yarhi-Milo. In related federal litigation the university defendant is formally named the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York. AP
The complaint alleges deliberate indifference and failure to respond to severe, persistent and coordinated harassment of students outspoken about Palestinian rights. Deliberate indifference is a legal standard that asks whether officials knew about serious harassment and failed to respond in a reasonable way. Khalil announced the lawsuit in a written statement posted on X. He stated that Columbia laid the groundwork for his targeting by the Trump administration through deliberate indifference and discrimination.
He said he will next pursue action against individuals at Columbia responsible for what the plaintiffs endured. He described this filing as focused on the university as an institution first, with claims against individuals to follow.
A Columbia spokesperson declined to comment on pending litigation. The spokesperson said Columbia is committed to protecting its community from discrimination and harassment.
Khalil is a U.S. green card holder of Palestinian descent. A green card allows a noncitizen to live and work permanently in the United States. He was a graduate student at SIPA when federal immigration agents arrested him at his university apartment. The arrest date is recorded as March 8, 2025. ACLU In a U.S. District Court complaint hosted on the ccrjustice.org domain, Khalil identifies as Muslim.
The challenge to his detention has its own court history. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that his lawsuit challenging detention by ICE should move forward in New Jersey. A federal court later rejected the government's attempt to use immigration law provisions to block his habeas challenge, a request asking a court to decide if detention is lawful. ACLU His legal team later asked an appeals court to affirm lower-court rulings that ordered his release on bail. ACLU
The case can be followed through two tracking systems. CourtListener assigns docket number 69733020 to Khalil v. The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, and the Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse tracks Khalil v. The Trustees of Columbia University as Case 46259.
The broader context here is liability, not only campus politics. Deliberate indifference and retaliation are difficult standards to meet in federal court. They turn on what administrators knew, when they knew it, what procedures existed and whether responses to reported harassment were clearly unreasonable. That puts internal communications, complaint files and consistency of enforcement at the center of discovery, the stage when both sides exchange documents.
Looking at what this means for universities, the case tests two questions at once. The first is the duty to protect students from peer and third-party harassment while preserving speech and associational rights. The second is how campus discipline connects with federal immigration enforcement. How a motion to dismiss, a request to end the case early, handles those questions, and whether the court allows early discovery into knowledge and intent, will shape settlement choices and governance reviews well beyond Columbia.
