In a significant legal development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled in favor of the Trump administration, potentially leading to the re-detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and pro-Palestinian activist. The decision, made on Thursday in a 2-1 vote, overturned a lower court's directive that had temporarily released Khalil from immigration custody.
Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, appointed by Republican presidents, authored the majority opinion. They emphasized that immigration courts are the appropriate venues for addressing detention and removal challenges, as mandated by Congress. The ruling does not directly result in Khalil's deportation but permits federal authorities to retake him into custody while immigration proceedings are ongoing.
Khalil's initial detention in March 2025 followed his involvement in pro-Gaza demonstrations at Columbia University, which included an encampment at Hamilton Hall. Citing potential foreign policy risks, federal authorities took Khalil into custody. He spent approximately three months in detention before U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, an appointee of President Biden, deemed the detention unconstitutional and ordered Khalil's release.
The Trump administration swiftly appealed the decision, arguing that district courts lack the authority to intervene in immigration court matters. The Third Circuit's agreement with this stance instructs the lower court to dismiss Khalil's case, reaffirming that any challenges to detention or removal should be made after the conclusion of immigration proceedings.
In dissent, Judge Arianna Freeman, also a Biden appointee, argued for the necessity of immediate judicial review in Khalil's case, pointing to the potential for irreparable harm. Khalil's legal team maintains that his deportation to Algeria, where he has citizenship, or to Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp, could endanger his life. They also argue that his detention was an act of retaliation against his First Amendment rights.
Despite acknowledging these concerns, the appeals court stated that the immigration system is the proper forum for such claims. Legal experts suggest that the ruling could have wider implications for immigration litigation, potentially restricting noncitizens' ability to challenge detentions or removals outside of the designated immigration process.
The Board of Immigration Appeals is currently reviewing Khalil's removal order, while the appeals court's decision stands. Legal analysts believe that the ruling reinforces the process set by Congress for adjudicating immigration claims and may influence how future cases are approached.
Following the court's decision, Khalil expressed his determination to continue fighting for his rights, stating, "Today's ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve. I will continue to pursue justice for my rights and for others in similar situations."
