A federal appeals court has stripped away the legal shield that kept Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate student who helped organize pro-Palestinian campus encampments, out of immigration detention. The Third Circuit's 2-1 decision reverses a lower court order that had freed Khalil, ruling that the district judge never had jurisdiction over his removal case in the first place.
The decision hands the Trump administration a clear win in its campaign to deport noncitizens tied to what federal officials describe as pro-Hamas activism on American college campuses. It also sets up a potential rearrest and puts Khalil closer to removal than he has been at any point since his case became a national flashpoint.
The core of the ruling is jurisdictional, not ideological, though the practical effect lands squarely on one side. The Third Circuit held that the Immigration and Nationality Act strips federal district courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over removal proceedings like Khalil's. That means the New Jersey federal judge who intervened and ordered Khalil's release acted outside the bounds of judicial authority.
As Courthouse News reported, the ruling means Khalil now faces rearrest and deportation after the full Third Circuit denied rehearing. The panel's majority was direct in its reasoning:
"[W]e hold that the District Court lacked jurisdiction over Khalil's removal proceedings."
The practical translation: any constitutional challenges Khalil wants to raise must first run through the immigration court system before a federal judge can weigh in. The appeals court did not rule on the merits of Khalil's deportation. It ruled on who gets to decide, and the answer is not the district court. Just The News detailed how the INA's jurisdiction-stripping provision was central to the panel's analysis.
Khalil is a legal permanent resident who became one of the most visible organizers of the pro-Palestinian encampment movement at Columbia University following Hamas's October 7 atrocities. Federal officials accused him of leading activities "aligned to Hamas," though no criminal charges have been filed and no evidence of criminal conduct has been publicly presented.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio revoked Khalil's green card in March, citing adverse foreign policy consequences. An immigration judge subsequently ordered Khalil deported to Algeria or Syria, finding that he had misrepresented Hamas-tied work on his immigration forms, the Washington Free Beacon reported.
A New Jersey federal district judge then stepped in, ordering Khalil's release from immigration detention. That intervention is what the Third Circuit has now reversed.
The administration has not been shy about the broader stakes. The Khalil case fits within a wider initiative targeting foreign nationals involved in what officials characterize as antisemitic activism on campuses. The Trump administration has also fired immigration judges who blocked deportation of Palestinian rights advocates, signaling that personnel decisions and legal strategy are moving in tandem.
Tricia McLaughlin, a Homeland Security Department spokesperson, called the ruling what the administration clearly considers it:
"A vindication of the rule of law."
Khalil struck a different tone. He framed the decision as a setback but not a surrender, telling reporters that the fight would continue.
"The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability."
When pressed on whether he would condemn Hamas, Khalil offered a carefully hedged response: "I condemn the killing of all civilians. Full stop. I don't want to get into it." That answer has done little to quiet critics who view his activism as something more than ordinary political speech.
The ruling was not unanimous. One judge on the three-member panel dissented, though the specifics of that dissent were not detailed in the available record. The 2-1 split underscores the partisan and ideological fault lines running through federal courts on immigration enforcement questions. National Review noted that the case reflects deeper divisions among judges over how far the executive branch can push deportation authority.
Those divisions have played out across multiple circuits. The D.C. Circuit recently shut down a contempt probe into Trump deportation flights in another 2-1 decision, while other courts have pushed back on administration enforcement actions.
For Khalil, the immediate question is whether federal authorities will move to rearrest him. The Third Circuit's ruling removes the legal barrier that kept him free, but AP News noted that the decision does not automatically result in his detention. Immigration authorities retain discretion on timing.
Khalil's legal team could seek Supreme Court review, though the jurisdictional question the Third Circuit resolved is well-trodden ground. The INA's jurisdiction-stripping provisions have been upheld repeatedly, and convincing the high court to take the case would require identifying a circuit split or a novel constitutional question the panel failed to address.
The Khalil decision carries weight beyond one man's deportation. The Washington Free Beacon reported that the reversal could affect other foreign nationals arrested for antisemitic activism, establishing that district courts cannot short-circuit removal proceedings by asserting jurisdiction the INA denies them.
That matters because the pattern in several of these cases has followed a similar script: the administration initiates removal proceedings, a sympathetic district judge intervenes, and the case stalls while appeals play out. The Third Circuit has now told district judges in its territory to stand down until immigration courts have finished their work. Courts elsewhere have reached different conclusions on the limits of executive enforcement, which means the legal landscape remains fractured.
Investigators and immigration officials will still need to establish the factual record underlying Khalil's deportation order. The allegation that he misrepresented Hamas-tied work on immigration forms is central to the removal case, and Khalil has not been convicted of any crime. Whether the immigration court record supports the government's claims will determine whether the deportation ultimately sticks.
The administration has shown it views these cases as tests of a principle: that noncitizens who engage in activities the government deems aligned with designated terrorist organizations can be removed through existing immigration law, without criminal prosecution. If that theory holds up through the immigration courts and any subsequent appellate review, it gives the executive branch a powerful tool that does not depend on the criminal justice system at all.
Judicial composition continues to shape outcomes in these fights. The balance of courts at every level determines whether executive enforcement actions survive or get blocked at the threshold.
Strip away the procedural language and the Khalil case poses a blunt question: can the federal government deport a legal permanent resident for political activism that officials link to a terrorist organization, even without criminal charges? The Third Circuit did not answer that question. It said the immigration courts get first crack at it.
That distinction matters. Khalil's supporters frame the case as a First Amendment crisis. The administration frames it as straightforward immigration enforcement against someone who lied on federal forms and organized on behalf of a designated terrorist group. Both sides will get their day in immigration court. The Third Circuit just decided it will not happen in a federal courthouse first.
When the government can strip a green card, order deportation, and clear every judicial hurdle without ever filing a criminal charge, the question is not whether the law allows it. The question is whether the institutions trusted to check that power are paying attention.
