By Claire Taggart
WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a significant setback for pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit declined last Friday to rehear his detention case, a decision that Amnesty International said could open the door to his deportation.
Khalil, a Columbia University activist and lawful permanent resident, was released from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody after being arrested by federal agents in March 2025, according to Laura Romero of ABC News.
According to Romero, Khalil was detained on the grounds that his presence would “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio submitted a two-page memorandum that made no mention of previous allegations that Khalil had misrepresented information. Instead, the memo relied on an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act referencing “if the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe that the alien’s presence or activities in the United States would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”
In a separate case last month, Khalil received a final order of removal, although other court orders currently prevent the Trump administration from detaining him, according to his attorneys.
Following the 6-5 federal appeals court decision denying his request for a full-court rehearing, Khalil must now pursue his constitutional claims through the immigration appeals process.
According to Tulasi Cherukuri of the Columbia Spectator, Khalil plans to appeal to the Supreme Court after the ruling reversed a decision releasing him from ICE detention.
Three judges dissented from the decision to deny rehearing. Romero reported that the dissenters wrote they “cannot fulfill that role if [they] write [them]selves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself.” One of the dissenting judges, Cheryl Krause, stated that “[t]he Judiciary ‘serves as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances’ protecting civil liberties and checking legislative and executive discretion.”
The dissenting judges further warned that the ruling carries sweeping implications and “imperils the civil liberties of Petitioner Mahmoud Khalil and similarly situated noncitizens.”
The escalation to the Supreme Court marks the latest chapter in the monthslong legal battle surrounding Khalil’s efforts to challenge the federal government’s attempts to deport him.
For now, Khalil “cannot lawfully be detained or deported” until the appeals court issues its mandate, according to Cherukuri. His legal team has asked the Third Circuit to stay the mandate, a request that would take effect May 29. If the circuit court denies that request, attorneys intend to seek a stay from the Supreme Court.
Brett Kaufman, senior counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, said he remains confident in the legal arguments and that Friday’s ruling “is not the final word.” He added that “[f]ederal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country’s immigration system to punish people for their constitutionally protected speech.”
In contrast, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said the agency “is pleased with this significant victory from the court of appeals” and intends to “work to enforce Khalil’s lawful removal order.”
Khalil’s legal team argues that the executive branch has compromised the courts’ ability to properly adjudicate the federal government’s actions. They raised concerns about the immigration court system after three judges on the Third Circuit ruled that the federal judge who ordered Khalil’s release from ICE detention lacked jurisdiction over the case.
Those judges concluded that Khalil’s claims must be heard in immigration court, which operates under the executive branch through the Department of Justice rather than the judicial branch.
Cherukuri reported that since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, the administration has reduced the size of the Board of Immigration Appeals and that the board has sided with DHS in 97 percent of cases.
As Khalil continues his legal fight through the immigration court system, advocacy organizations and civil rights groups have sharply criticized the appeals court’s decision.
The ACLU has indicated it will seek Supreme Court review of Friday’s ruling, according to Romero. Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said he hopes “the Supreme Court will recognize how dangerous the Third Circuit’s decision was” for Khalil and “other non-citizens the administration has set its vengeful sights upon.”
Justin Mazzola, deputy director of research at Amnesty International USA, said Khalil should “never have been detained in the first place, let alone face deportation for his activism and views.”
He added that the court’s decision “will…cause undue harm and distress to [Khalil] and his family” and send the message that those who exercise “their right to free speech will be subject to arbitrary arrest, detention, and deportation by the Trump administration.”
Azmy and others said they are “honored to continue to stand with Mahmoud as he keeps fighting for Palestinian rights, the rights of immigrants brutalized by DHS policies, and the right of people to speak out against injustice.”
“The Trump administration should end this political charade by dropping the immigration case against Mahmoud entirely and respecting his right to free speech and peaceful protest,” Mazzola said.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
