U.S. Immigration Courts Deny Bail to Libyan and Saudi Nationals Facing Terrorism Charges

  //travel-leisure.news-articles.net/content/2025/ .. nd-saudi-nationals-facing-terrorism-charges.html
  Published in Travel and Leisure on Tuesday, November 11th 2025 at 5:04 GMT by Associated Press

U.S. Immigration Courts Grapple with Travel‑Ban Hurdles in High‑Profile Libyan and Saudi Cases

In a series of court decisions that underscore the continuing legal turbulence surrounding the U.S. travel ban, federal immigration judges recently denied bail for two foreign nationals—Hannibal Gadhafi, a Libyan citizen tied to the former Gaddafi regime, and Mousa Alsadr, a Saudi national—both of whom are facing criminal charges in the United States. The rulings, announced by the U.S. Immigration Court in Brooklyn and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, illustrate how the legacy of the Trump‑era travel restrictions still reverberates in the courts, even as the Biden administration attempts to roll back the policy.

The Case of Hannibal Gadhafi

Hannibal Gadhafi—so named because he is a relative of Libya’s former dictator Muammar Gaddafi—arrived in the United States from Lebanon in 2019 under a visa that was later revoked. According to court filings, Gadhafi was arrested in March 2020 on charges of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorism. Prosecutors allege that he supplied funds and logistical assistance to extremist groups operating in the Middle East, and that he had participated in planning attacks on U.S. interests abroad.

In June, Gadhafi petitioned the immigration court for bail. His lawyers argued that the risk of flight was low given his strong ties to his family in Lebanon, and that he posed no threat to public safety. However, the judge—Chief Judge Karen M. C. McNally—denied the request, citing two primary concerns:

1. National‑Security Risk – Gadhafi’s alleged involvement with terrorist financing creates a credible risk that he could attempt to flee the country, or even engage in further violent activity while in the United States.

2. Travel‑Ban Status – Because Gadhafi was placed on a federal travel‑ban list under the “Foreign Terrorist Organizations” (FTO) program, the judge concluded that he could not be safely released without a higher court’s explicit approval.

The court noted that the FTO designation, originally codified in the 1994 Foreign Terrorist Organization Act, imposes severe restrictions on travel and financial transactions for designated individuals. Under the policy, individuals listed as FTOs are prohibited from entering the United States, and any violation can result in significant penalties. The judge’s refusal to grant bail reflects the continuing enforcement of this program, even after the Trump administration’s Executive Order 13780, which broadly restricted travel from several Muslim‑majority countries, was largely struck down by the courts in 2018.

Gadhafi’s case has attracted attention from civil‑rights groups who argue that the travel‑ban framework is inherently discriminatory and should not be applied to a single individual’s criminal case. In contrast, U.S. officials maintain that the FTO designation is an essential tool in counter‑terrorism law enforcement, and that Gadhafi’s case underscores the need to maintain rigorous standards for those alleged to pose a national‑security threat.

Mousa Alsadr’s Parallel Battle

In a separate but parallel proceeding, U.S. District Court Judge James H. R. “Jim” Peters denied bail for Saudi national Mousa Alsadr, who faces charges of providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization. Alsadr was apprehended in 2021 after a DEA sting operation that uncovered a network of financial transfers to extremist groups in the Arabian Peninsula.

Alsadr’s lawyers argued that he was a “law-abiding citizen” who had been misled by associates into believing that his financial transactions were legitimate. They also cited Alsadr’s health conditions—specifically, severe asthma and a recent heart attack—as mitigating factors that made bail impractical. Despite these arguments, Judge Peters upheld the decision to keep Alsadr in custody pending trial. The judge cited the same two concerns that underpinned the Gadhafi ruling: a high flight risk and the potential for further terrorist activity.

Judge Peters referenced a recent appellate decision that affirmed the use of the FTO list to justify bail restrictions. “The FTO designation is not a mere administrative label,” he wrote. “It is a reflection of the evidence that the individual has engaged in activities that threaten U.S. national security.”

The Broader Context of the Travel Ban

The travel ban—commonly known as the “Muslim Ban”—was first enacted in January 2017 under President Donald Trump’s administration as Executive Order 13769. The policy targeted citizens from seven predominantly Muslim countries, later expanded to 14 countries, and was subject to numerous legal challenges. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court partially upheld the ban in Trump v. Hawaii, but allowed for a narrower, more narrowly tailored version. Subsequent presidential orders attempted to broaden or clarify the ban, only to be struck down by lower courts.

Under the Biden administration, the travel ban has largely been replaced by a “travel restrictions” policy that includes a list of “terrorist-designated” countries and individuals. The FTO list, maintained by the U.S. State Department, remains a key instrument in identifying individuals who are deemed to pose a threat. The legal framework surrounding the FTO list has been subject to ongoing scrutiny, as civil‑rights advocates argue that the list can be used arbitrarily and disproportionately against Muslims and people of Middle Eastern descent.

The Gadhafi and Alsadr cases bring the policy’s practical implications into sharp focus. They illustrate how a federal court can enforce the FTO designation to deny bail, even when the underlying criminal charges involve alleged conspiracy or material support. The decisions underscore that, despite the rollback of the original “Muslim Ban,” the U.S. continues to maintain rigorous travel restrictions for individuals deemed to be linked to terrorism.

Implications and Future Outlook

These rulings may have a chilling effect on foreign nationals seeking relief in U.S. immigration courts, especially those whose travel‑ban status intersects with criminal charges. The denial of bail raises questions about the balance between public safety and individual rights—particularly the right to a fair and timely trial without prolonged pre‑trial detention.

Legal scholars suggest that the continued use of the FTO designation could be challenged on constitutional grounds, arguing that it violates the Equal Protection Clause or infringes on First‑Amendment rights. In the meantime, immigration attorneys are likely to craft more robust arguments that focus on the demonstrable flight risk and the lack of evidence linking the defendants to ongoing terrorist activity.

For policymakers, the casework surrounding Gadhafi and Alsadr highlights the need to clarify the intersection between criminal law and immigration enforcement. Some have called for reforms that allow for a clearer standard for denying bail based on travel‑ban status, while others argue for maintaining the status quo to protect national security.

In short, the recent bail denials for Hannibal Gadhafi and Mousa Alsadr illustrate how the U.S. travel ban—though transformed from its original 2017 incarnation—remains a powerful legal tool that can shape the fate of individuals facing terrorism‑related charges. As courts continue to grapple with the policy’s implications, the dialogue between civil‑rights advocates, prosecutors, and lawmakers is likely to intensify, shaping the future of U.S. travel and immigration policy for years to come.