Mahmoud Khalil’s lawyers say they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after an appeals court ruling raised the risk of renewed detention.
PHILADELPHIA, UNITED STATES.— Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian
activist, is preparing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal
appeals court ruling that could allow immigration authorities to detain him
again and pursue deportation, according to his lawyers and court filings
reported Friday. The case has become a closely watched test of immigration
detention, judicial review and the legal protections available to non-citizens
involved in political activism.
Appeals court ruling raises risk of renewed detention
The Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to
revisit a prior ruling that found a federal district judge lacked jurisdiction
when he ordered Khalil released from immigration detention last year.
The full court split 6-5, leaving in place a January decision by a
three-judge panel. That decision said Khalil’s claims could not be heard by
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in New Jersey at that stage and instead
should move through the immigration court process before further federal
review.
Khalil’s lawyers said they would seek Supreme Court review and also
asked the 3rd Circuit to prevent its decision from taking formal effect while
the appeal is pursued. The ruling was scheduled to take effect on May 29,
according to Reuters.
The immediate practical concern for Khalil’s legal team is whether immigration authorities could move to detain him again while the Supreme Court process unfolds.
Why Mahmoud Khalil’s case has drawn national attention
Khalil became one of the most visible foreign-born activists detained
during the Trump administration’s immigration actions involving students and
graduates who took part in pro-Palestinian campus activism.
He is an Algerian citizen who was born in a Palestinian refugee camp in
Syria. He had lawful permanent resident status, commonly known as a green card,
when immigration agents arrested him in March 2025 in New York City, according
to Reuters and civil liberties organizations involved in the case.
His supporters say the case reflects a broader attempt to punish
political speech and deter criticism of U.S. foreign policy and Israel’s war in
Gaza. The government has argued that immigration law channels his claims
through the removal process and that his removal order can be enforced.
The dispute therefore reaches beyond one immigration case. It raises
questions about how courts review detention, how quickly constitutional claims
can be heard, and what protections apply when lawful permanent residents face
removal proceedings connected to alleged national security or foreign policy
concerns.
What the 3rd Circuit decided
The central issue before the 3rd Circuit was not whether Khalil should
ultimately be deported. Instead, the court focused on whether the federal
district court had authority to order his release from immigration detention
while his removal proceedings continued.
In January, a divided 3rd Circuit panel overturned Farbiarz’s order
releasing Khalil. The panel concluded that the Immigration and Nationality Act
limited the district court’s ability to address his claims at that stage. The
full court’s decision on May 22 left that ruling in place.
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents
Khalil, the 3rd Circuit denied rehearing en banc on May 22 after Khalil’s legal
team filed a petition for rehearing in March.
The divide among the judges underscored the stakes. Reuters reported
that six judges appointed by Republican presidents voted against rehearing the
case, while five judges appointed by Democratic presidents favored further
review. One dissenting judge warned that the ruling limited the judiciary’s
ability to protect civil liberties for non-citizens.
Lawyers say Supreme Court review is needed
Baher Azmy, a lawyer for Khalil at the Center for Constitutional Rights,
said the legal team plans to ask the Supreme Court to overturn the 3rd Circuit
decision. He described the ruling as dangerous and argued that it allows
prolonged detention without meaningful judicial review.
Civil liberties groups involved in Khalil’s defense say the case
presents urgent questions about access to courts. They argue that a person
facing detention and deportation should be able to raise constitutional claims
before removal is completed, especially when the person alleges retaliation for
protected speech.
The American Civil Liberties Union said after the January panel decision
that the ruling did not address the core First Amendment claims but instead
held that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction at that stage.
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear the case. Khalil’s lawyers
are expected to seek emergency or interim relief to prevent renewed detention
while the petition proceeds.
Immigration proceedings continue alongside federal court fight
Khalil’s detention and federal court litigation are only part of the
broader legal picture. His removal case has also moved through the immigration
court system.
An immigration judge previously ordered Khalil removed to Algeria or
Syria. In April 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied his appeal,
leaving a final administrative removal order in place, according to civil
liberties groups and reports on the case.
Khalil’s lawyers have disputed the government’s grounds for removal and
have argued that the case is retaliatory. The government has denied that
framing and has said immigration authorities may enforce the removal order.
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the 3rd Circuit’s May 22
decision, Reuters reported, and said it would work to enforce Khalil’s removal
order.
Because multiple legal tracks are involved, the timing matters. If the
3rd Circuit ruling takes effect before the Supreme Court acts, Khalil could
face renewed detention. If the court pauses the ruling, his lawyers may have
more time to seek review.
Free speech and immigration law collide
The case has become a focal point for advocates concerned about
political expression by non-citizens, especially students, graduates and lawful
permanent residents involved in campus protests.
Khalil’s supporters argue that the government’s actions target
pro-Palestinian advocacy. They say that allowing detention without immediate
judicial review could chill speech among immigrant communities and
international students.
The government’s position is rooted in immigration enforcement authority
and the statutory structure of removal proceedings. Federal officials have
argued that immigration law requires certain claims to be handled through the
administrative process and later reviewed by appeals courts.
That distinction is important. The litigation is not only about whether
the government can seek Khalil’s deportation. It is also about when and where a
person in removal proceedings can challenge detention and raise constitutional
claims.
Legal experts and civil liberties groups are watching whether the
Supreme Court treats the case as a narrow jurisdictional dispute or as a
broader test of judicial oversight in politically sensitive immigration cases.
Timeline of key developments in Khalil’s case
Khalil was arrested by immigration agents in March 2025 in New York City
while holding lawful permanent resident status, according to Reuters and
advocacy groups.
In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered Khalil
released from immigration detention. The Center for Constitutional Rights says
Farbiarz granted a preliminary injunction on June 11 and ordered Khalil
released on bail on June 20.
In January 2026, the 3rd Circuit reversed the district court’s release
order, saying the district court lacked jurisdiction over the relevant claims
at that stage.
In April 2026, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Khalil’s appeal
of the immigration judge’s removal decision, according to rights groups and
news reports.
On May 22, 2026, the 3rd Circuit declined to rehear the case, leaving
the January panel ruling in place and prompting Khalil’s lawyers to prepare a
Supreme Court appeal.
What remains unresolved
Several important questions remain unanswered.
The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether it will review the case or
grant any temporary protection against re-arrest. The 3rd Circuit must also
determine whether to delay the effect of its ruling while Khalil’s lawyers
pursue Supreme Court review.
The outcome of Khalil’s immigration appeals also remains significant. A
final administrative removal order may create immediate enforcement risk, but
federal court intervention could affect timing and detention authority.
There is also a broader unresolved legal issue: how courts should
balance immigration statutes that channel review through administrative
processes against constitutional claims involving detention, speech and alleged
government retaliation.
The answer could affect future cases involving non-citizens, including
lawful permanent residents, who argue that immigration enforcement is being
used to punish political expression.
Sources and credibility note
This article is based on reporting from Reuters, public statements and
case updates from the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU, and
publicly available information about proceedings before the 3rd U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals and immigration authorities. Relevant source types include
federal appellate court records, immigration court filings, Department of
Homeland Security statements, civil liberties organizations and major news
agencies.
CRNTimes.com prioritizes verified information, transparent attribution
and updates when new details become available.
Why the case matters now
Khalil’s planned Supreme Court appeal comes at a critical point in a
case that has linked campus activism, immigration enforcement and judicial
oversight.
For Khalil, the immediate issue is whether he can avoid renewed
detention and possible deportation while his legal challenges continue. For
courts and policymakers, the case raises broader questions about access to
judicial review and the rights of non-citizens who face removal after political
activism.
The next developments to watch are whether the 3rd Circuit pauses its
ruling, whether Khalil’s lawyers file an emergency request at the Supreme
Court, and whether the justices decide the case presents questions requiring
immediate review.
By CRNTimes Editorial Team | CRNTimes.com | San José | May 25, 2026