Columbia student Mohsen Mahdawi walked out of the federal court building Wednesday afternoon after a Vermont federal judge found his two-week detention expressed "tremendous harm" to those not accused of crime.

Mahdawi, a legal permanent resident, was detained in his pro-Palestine activism for his activism, welcomed by a group of cheering supporters, gathered outside the court.

"I said it clearly and loudly. To President Trump and his cabinet: I'm not afraid of you," Mahadawi told supporters and the media.

Judge Geoffrey W. Crawford said in his opinion: “Law residents who have not accused of crime or misconduct are being arrested and threatened to be deported because they expressed their opinions on the political issues of the day.” The judge compared the moment to the red panic and McCarthy era. A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement to the press that no lawsuit or judge would prevent the government from “restoreing the rule of law for our immigration system.”

However, the case and the separate deportation case Mahdawi's face is far from over. Luna Doubri, a Mahdawi lawyer, told Morning version The legal team plans to continue to fight the federal government against his claims on unconstitutional grounds.

“One of the bedrocks of this country should be the freedom to speak out,” Dubry said. “And if the courts don’t see that, or if we can’t uphold the Constitution in this way, then we all need to look, look deep, and work hard on ourselves and our Constitution.”

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Highlights of the interview

Leila Fadel: A few days ago, our audience heard from your client Mohsen Mahdawi from the prison and now he has been released. Did you surprise me that happened?

Luna Droubi: Of course, I was surprised that it happened, but it was definitely the right thing to do. The judge understands this. He heard what Morson had to say. He read the law and he did the right thing.

Fadel: What did he say to you when he was released?

Droubi: Mosen is a very peaceful existence. So, you know, he just looked at me and he said, thank you. He nodded and he gave me a big hug. That's it. He is still dealing with what happened. But I think there is a huge relief on my face.

Fadel: But this situation is not over yet. What are the conditions for his release?

Droubi: He set only a few conditions for him to stay in Vermont, and anyway, it was his home. In any case, he was allowed to travel to New York City to attend Columbia, which was his goal, any other trip must be approved by the court, and he must attend the hearing in the case.

Fadel: What will happen next? There are two tracks in the federal court case, and you have asked the court to claim that your client’s First Amendment Freedom of Expression has been violated and his due process has been violated. However, his deportation also had an immigration case.

Droubi: Immigration cases are underway. This case has nothing to do with immigration procedures. So we continue. Federal cases will continue to be litigated and we also hope to succeed in bringing Mr. Mahdawi's entire participation framework against the Constitution.

Fadel: Now, the government is invoking the rare-used immigration law, saying that Martin Maddox's presence in the United States will have a negative impact on U.S. foreign policy. They said in court that the protests he led have sparked anti-Semitism and that his presence would undermine peace in the Middle East. But he was not charged with a crime. What are the risks in this case?

Droubi: The danger is freedom of speech. Mr. Mahdawi did nothing but advocate on behalf of his people. Born in a refugee camp in Palestine, he came here to learn about peace and advocate for peace, but called for recognition of Palestinian human rights. One of the bedrocks of this country should be freedom of speaking. And if the courts don’t see this, or we can’t uphold the Constitution in this way, then we all need to see, a profound and hard-working view of ourselves and our Constitution.

Note: Mahdawi is one of several noncitizen university students as they advocated detention in the war in Gaza. Trump administration The rarely used terms have been called The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 gives the Secretary of State a determination whether a person's presence in the country undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives.

Fadel: What do you think of those anti-Semitism accusations that he was shocked by, his existence would undermine peace in the Middle East?

Droubi: I find it ridiculous because this person only advocates peace. Unless the compromise on foreign policy is peace, I am not sure what their claim is.

Fadel: Since the Secretary of State is invoking this act, can your client recorrect it for the same reason only?

Droubi: Not under the Secretary of State's regulations. Likewise, he cannot recorrect it based on the reasons the government has tried to make in this case.

Fadel: Would you say this is a precedent setting case?

Droubi: Yes, I think so. I think the judge saw 130 people writing statements that proved the person’s role, who he was and the purpose he advocated. I think this situation illustrates all our understanding of this situation. traits, that is, we have the right to speak and we have the right to advocate on behalf of Palestinian human rights.

The broadcast version of this story was edited by Alice Woelfle and produced by Carla Esteves and Ashley Montgomery.