A federal appeals court has delivered a significant setback to Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, overturning a lower court ruling that had secured his freedom from immigration detention earlier this summer. The decision by a divided three-judge panel effectively removes a key legal obstacle to the government's efforts to deport the former Columbia University student leader while dramatically limiting the immediate avenues available to challenge his detention.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia ruled 2-1 that the New Jersey district court overstepped its authority when it granted Khalil's habeas corpus petition and ordered his release in June. According to the majority opinion, federal immigration law creates a specialized and exclusive system for challenging deportation that bypasses district courts entirely, requiring such challenges to be filed directly with appeals courts as petitions for review of final removal orders.
Jurisdictional Boundaries and Procedural Requirements
The panel's decision centers on a technical but critical aspect of immigration procedure that has far-reaching implications for how immigrants can challenge their detention. Congress has established a comprehensive scheme for deportation challenges that funnels them directly to federal appeals courts, rather than allowing them to begin in district courts through traditional habeas corpus petitions. This structure, the judges wrote, ensures that petitioners get "just one bite at the apple—not zero or two," preventing multiple simultaneous challenges while streamlining the process.
However, the court acknowledged this system creates a difficult and potentially lengthy waiting period for some individuals who believe they are being unlawfully detained. "It also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct," the opinion stated. The majority concluded that the law "bars Khalil from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition," effectively closing the door on the legal strategy that had secured his freedom after three months of incarceration.
This interpretation highlights the unique procedural landscape of immigration law, where constitutional challenges must often navigate complex jurisdictional limitations. Unlike criminal proceedings where habeas corpus serves as a fundamental safeguard against unlawful detention, immigration cases follow a separate track that can delay judicial review of constitutional claims until later stages of the process.
Dissent Warns of Legal Limbo and Constitutional Concerns
Judge Theodore McKee issued a strong and pointed dissent, warning that the majority's reading of the law could leave immigrants in legal limbo with no immediate way to challenge potentially unconstitutional detention. McKee argued that when the government invokes controversial and rarely used legal theories to justify detention, courts must retain the power to intervene promptly through habeas review to protect individual rights.
Khalil's attorney, Baher Azmy, embraced the dissent's reasoning and vowed to continue the fight. "We are disappointed by and strongly disagree with the majority's opinion, but take heart in the powerful dissenting opinion and will continue to fight against his unlawful persecution and detention through all available legal avenues," Azmy said in a statement to reporters following the ruling.
The Activist Behind the Case
Khalil emerged as a prominent and outspoken voice during pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia University, organizing protests, coordinating student movements, and speaking out against Israeli military actions in Gaza. His activism drew the attention of federal immigration authorities, who arrested him at his apartment in a dramatic early-morning operation on March 8, 2025.
He spent 104 days confined to a detention facility in Louisiana, missing significant personal milestones including the birth of his first child. His wife delivered their son while he remained in custody, a fact his lawyers highlighted to illustrate the profound human cost of his detention and the urgency of his release.
Government's Controversial Legal Theory
Federal officials have justified Khalil's arrest using an obscure and seldom-invoked provision of immigration law that permits deportation of noncitizens whose political beliefs or associations are deemed a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. The government has publicly claimed Khalil's activities are "aligned to Hamas," though it has presented no concrete evidence to support this assertion and has not charged him with any crime or terrorist activity.
In her June ruling, District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo found this legal justification likely unconstitutional, questioning whether the statute could survive First Amendment scrutiny when applied to political speech and advocacy. She ordered Khalil's immediate release, finding his detention likely violated constitutional protections for free expression and due process.
The Trump administration appealed, arguing that immigration judges—not federal district courts—should decide deportation cases and that the district court had improperly inserted itself into the administrative process. They also raised separate allegations that Khalil failed to disclose information on his green card application, claims he has publicly dismissed as "baseless and ridiculous" and retaliatory.
Broader Campaign Against Pro-Palestinian Activists
The appeals court decision represents a significant victory for the Trump administration's broader initiative targeting noncitizens who participated in protests critical of Israel. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has conducted a series of arrests of student activists and organizers across the country, citing national security concerns and using immigration law as a tool to remove individuals the administration views as problematic or supportive of terrorist organizations.
Legal observers note this case could establish important precedents about the limits of judicial review in immigration matters, particularly when constitutional rights intersect with deportation proceedings. The ruling may affect how other activists facing similar circumstances can challenge their detention and could embolden further enforcement actions against political organizers.
Free Speech Concerns and Civil Liberties
Throughout his legal battle, Khalil has consistently framed his treatment as retaliation for protected political expression rather than legitimate immigration enforcement. He describes his arrest as "a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech as I advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza."
His supporters argue the case exemplifies how immigration enforcement can be weaponized against political dissent, raising concerns about the chilling effect on campus activism and free expression. Civil liberties organizations have warned that using immigration status to punish political speech could deter international students and activists from engaging in protected protest activities, fundamentally undermining First Amendment principles.
The case has drawn attention from free speech advocates who see it as a test of whether the government can use administrative immigration proceedings to circumvent constitutional protections that would apply in criminal cases. The distinction between national security concerns and protected political advocacy lies at the heart of this debate.
Next Legal Maneuvers and Strategic Options
With the habeas route now closed, Khalil's legal team must pursue alternative strategies to prevent his deportation. They could file a petition for review once immigration authorities issue a final removal order, though that process could extend his legal battle for months or years while he remains in uncertain status. They may also seek other forms of relief from immigration officials or challenge specific aspects of the government's case through administrative channels within the Department of Homeland Security.
The case also raises questions about whether Congress should clarify the scope of judicial review in immigration cases involving constitutional claims. Advocacy groups have called for legislative action to ensure immigrants can challenge potentially unlawful detention, particularly when First Amendment rights are implicated and the government uses novel legal theories.
Implications for Immigration Jurisprudence
Immigration law experts are closely monitoring how this case develops, as the Third Circuit's interpretation could influence other circuits facing similar jurisdictional questions. The decision highlights the complex interplay between immigration statutes, constitutional rights, and judicial oversight in an era of increasingly aggressive immigration enforcement.
The ruling may ultimately force higher courts, including potentially the Supreme Court, to address whether immigrants have adequate avenues to challenge detention they believe violates fundamental rights. As the case proceeds, it could shape the boundaries of executive power in immigration enforcement and the role of federal courts in protecting individual liberties against administrative overreach.
For now, Khalil remains free while his deportation case continues through administrative immigration channels. But Thursday's decision has significantly narrowed his legal options and strengthened the government's position in its controversial campaign against pro-Palestinian activists, raising profound questions about the future of political expression for noncitizens in the United States.