The Trump administration moved closer to re-detaining Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and pro-Palestinian activist, after a federal appeals court overturned a lower court’s order that had temporarily freed him from immigration custody.
The ruling removes a significant legal hurdle that had stalled the administration’s removal proceedings against him.
In a 2-1 decision Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that a federal district court did not have authority to release Khalil, noting that Congress designated immigration courts as the proper venue for challenges related to detention and removal.
While the decision does not immediately deport him, it allows federal authorities to take him back into custody as the immigration process continues.
Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, both appointed by Republican presidents, wrote in the majority opinion that petitioners are guaranteed a meaningful opportunity to present claims once removal proceedings are complete.
“Petitioners have a meaningful opportunity to present arguments after the immigration process concludes,” they wrote, stressing the importance of adhering to the statutory framework.
Khalil was detained in March 2025 following his participation in pro-Gaza demonstrations at Columbia University, including an encampment that temporarily occupied Hamilton Hall.
Federal authorities cited potential foreign policy risks as justification for his detention.
He spent roughly three months in custody before U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, ruled in June that Khalil’s detention was unconstitutional and ordered his release, according to The Washington Examiner.
The Trump administration appealed, asserting that district courts are not empowered to intervene in matters assigned to immigration courts.
The Third Circuit agreed, instructing the lower court to dismiss the case and confirming that Khalil must challenge any detention or removal only after immigration proceedings reach a final outcome.
Judge Arianna Freeman, a Biden appointee, dissented, arguing that Khalil’s claims presented a “now-or-never” scenario that required immediate judicial review, The Hill reported.
Her dissent highlighted the tension between statutory frameworks and urgent claims of potential harm.
Khalil’s attorneys maintain that deportation to Algeria, where he holds citizenship, or Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp, could endanger his safety.
They also contend that his detention was retaliatory, linked to his exercise of First Amendment rights.
The appeals court acknowledged these concerns but emphasized that the proper forum for such claims is the immigration system, according to The Post Millennial.
Experts say the ruling may have broader consequences for immigration litigation, potentially limiting noncitizens’ ability to use habeas petitions in district courts to bypass immigration proceedings—a tactic that has resulted in multiple releases ordered by Democratic-appointed judges.
“[T]he INA bars him from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the court noted.
The Board of Immigration Appeals is reviewing a removal order for Khalil while the appeals court ruling remains in effect.
Legal analysts say the decision reinforces Congress’s designated process for adjudicating immigration claims and could shape how similar cases are handled in the future.
Khalil released a statement following the ruling, vowing to continue pursuing his case.
“Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve,” he said. “I will continue to pursue justice for my rights and for others in similar situations.”
