Trump-Appointed Judge Orders ICE to Release Hamas-Linked Prisoner!

A Trump-appointed federal judge just ordered U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to release a Milwaukee mosque president convicted twice by an Israeli military court — and the real fight is only beginning.

Story Snapshot

Salah Sarsour, president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement on March 30, 2026, and held in an Indiana jail.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) cited two Israeli military court convictions from 1989 and 1995 and alleged he lied on immigration forms, but provided no supporting evidence when pressed by reporters.
U.S. District Judge James Patrick Hanlon, appointed by President Trump in 2018, ordered Sarsour released, saying the government failed to show his detention outweighed his First Amendment rights.
Sarsour’s removal case is still active — his release is temporary while the legal fight continues.

What the Government Actually Charged — and What It Could Not Prove

The DHS case rests on two Israeli military court convictions. Sarsour was convicted in 1989 for throwing a Molotov cocktail at Israeli forces in the West Bank. He was convicted again in 1995 for attempting to possess weapons and ammunition. DHS also alleged he lied on his U.S. immigration forms by not disclosing those convictions. When the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel asked DHS for evidence of the fraud claim, the agency provided none.^[1]

That gap matters. Under U.S. immigration law, a foreign conviction can trigger deportation regardless of the circumstances behind it.^[16] The Board of Immigration Appeals has long held it cannot second-guess a foreign court’s verdict. So the convictions themselves are legally usable. The bigger problem for the government is the fraud allegation — it made the claim publicly but could not back it up when asked directly.

A Trump Judge Draws a Hard Line on First Amendment Retaliation

Judge Hanlon did not rule that Sarsour is innocent or that he cannot be deported. He ruled that the government failed to justify keeping him locked up right now. The judge noted that Sarsour had lived in the United States legally for over 30 years, had his green card renewed repeatedly, and was never flagged as a threat until he became publicly vocal about Palestinian rights.^[4] Hanlon wrote plainly: “The mere mention of foreign relations concerns does not automatically override First Amendment rights.”

That is a serious statement from a judge the Trump administration put on the bench. It signals that even judges sympathetic to strong enforcement draw a line when the government cannot show its work. The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement argued that Sarsour, as a non-citizen, does not hold the same First Amendment protections as a U.S. citizen. The judge rejected that argument outright.^[4]

The Facts That Cut Against Sarsour’s Supporters

Sarsour’s defenders frame this entirely as a free speech case. That framing deserves scrutiny. Throwing a Molotov cocktail at military forces is not a minor offense. Neither is attempting to acquire weapons and ammunition. These are not technical violations — they are acts of political violence. Sarsour says he did not understand the charges because they were presented in Hebrew, and he claims he was tortured in custody.^[12] Those claims are serious, but they do not erase the underlying conduct the convictions describe.

A federal judge ordered immigration officials to release the president of Wisconsin’s largest mosque from detention June 18, finding that Salah Sarsour has raised a “substantial” claim he was being targeted for speaking out in favor of Palestinian rights.https://t.co/sIcOvxA6H2

— First Amendment Watch (@FirstAmendWatch) June 19, 2026

The deportation documents do not allege Sarsour supported Hamas while living in the United States.^[1] That is a critical distinction. The “Hamas-linked” framing circulating online goes beyond what the government’s own filings actually claim. Calling someone Hamas-linked without evidence from U.S.-based conduct is not a legal argument — it is a label. The government’s case, as filed, stands on the foreign convictions and the alleged immigration fraud, not on any documented terror support inside America.

Why This Case Is Bigger Than One Man in Milwaukee

Immigration law has allowed foreign convictions to trigger removal proceedings since the late 1980s.^[20] What makes this case unusual is the timing. Sarsour held a valid green card for over three decades. The government renewed it multiple times. Suddenly, old Israeli military court records became the basis for detention. The judge asked the obvious question: why now? The government had no clean answer. That is the heart of why Hanlon ruled the way he did.

The removal case is still live. Sarsour is home in Milwaukee, but he is not cleared. The immigration court will still weigh whether his convictions legally require deportation and whether the fraud allegation can be proven. If DHS can produce real evidence of immigration form fraud, the legal picture shifts. If it cannot, this case becomes a cautionary example of what happens when the government makes public accusations it cannot support in court. The outcome will matter far beyond Wisconsin.