A federal appeals court has sided with the Trump administration, opening the door for immigration authorities to re-detain Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and pro-Palestinian activist. Previously, a lower court ruling had temporarily paused his removal case.
On Thursday, a 2–1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit overturned that order and returned control of the case to the immigration system. In doing so, the court ruled that federal district courts lack authority to interfere in detention matters governed by immigration law.
Importantly, the ruling does not result in immediate deportation. Instead, it removes a major legal obstacle and allows federal officials to take Khalil back into custody as proceedings continue.
Court Reaffirms Congress’s Role in Immigration Law
In the majority opinion, Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, both appointed by Republican presidents, emphasized the limits set by Congress. According to the judges, immigration law provides a clear process that courts must follow.
While individuals facing removal retain the right to challenge their detention, those challenges must come after immigration proceedings conclude. As a result, early intervention by district courts falls outside their authority.
“Petitioners are guaranteed a meaningful opportunity to present their claims once removal proceedings are complete,” the judges wrote. Ultimately, they stressed strict adherence to the statutory framework established by Congress.
Detention Stemmed From Campus Protest Activity
Back in March 2025, federal authorities detained Khalil following his involvement in pro-Gaza protests at Columbia University. Notably, those demonstrations included an encampment that temporarily occupied Hamilton Hall.
At the time, officials cited foreign-policy and national-interest concerns to justify his detention. Those concerns, they argued, outweighed the need for immediate judicial review.
After spending roughly three months in custody, Khalil secured his release in June. At that point, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, ruled that the detention violated constitutional protections.
Appeal Quickly Reverses Course
Soon afterward, the Trump administration appealed the decision. In its filing, the administration argued that district courts lack jurisdiction over active immigration proceedings.
The Third Circuit agreed with that position. Consequently, the appeals court ordered the lower court to dismiss the case.
Going forward, Khalil must raise any legal challenges only after immigration proceedings reach a final outcome, the court ruled.
Dissent Highlights Urgency and Risk
In contrast, Judge Arianna Freeman, also a Biden appointee, issued a strong dissent. She described Khalil’s situation as a “now-or-never” scenario.
According to Freeman, delaying judicial review could expose Khalil to irreparable harm. More broadly, her dissent highlighted the tension between rigid statutory limits and urgent human consequences.
Safety Concerns and Free Speech Claims
Meanwhile, Khalil’s attorneys continue to warn of serious risks. Specifically, they argue that deportation to Algeria, where he holds citizenship, or to Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp, could endanger his safety.
In addition, the legal team claims the government detained Khalil in retaliation for political activism. From their perspective, his protest activity falls squarely under First Amendment–protected speech.
Although the appeals court acknowledged these concerns, it still ruled that immigration courts—not federal district judges—must address them.
Broader Implications for Immigration Litigation
Beyond this case, legal analysts see far-reaching implications. Many believe the ruling could limit how noncitizens use habeas petitions to challenge immigration detention before cases conclude.
As the court noted, the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) bars individuals from attacking detention and removal through habeas petitions during ongoing proceedings.
Currently, the Board of Immigration Appeals is reviewing Khalil’s removal order. Until then, the appeals court ruling remains in effect.
Khalil Vows to Continue His Legal Fight
Following the decision, Khalil released a public statement. In it, he expressed disappointment but also determination.
“Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing,” he said. “Nevertheless, it does not break our resolve. I will continue to pursue justice—for myself and for others in similar situations.”
About The Author
