US Appeals Court Overturns Release of Activist Mahmoud Khalil

A federal appeals court has overturned a previous ruling that released pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention, bringing the Trump administration closer to deporting him. However, the panel did not rule on the constitutionality of the administration’s actions, instead stating that procedural steps through immigration courts must be completed before Khalil can appeal. The decision does not mandate his immediate re-detention.

Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent U.S. resident, was detained in 2025 for his activism and alleged ties to Hamas—claims unsupported by criminal charges. His arrest was justified under a rarely used law targeting foreign nationals deemed threats to U.S. foreign policy. A district judge had earlier deemed this justification likely unconstitutional and ordered his release, but that ruling was appealed.

Khalil remains free pending appeals, which could extend for months. His lawyers plan further legal action, possibly up to the Supreme Court. He faces potential deportation to Algeria or Syria, countries where his legal team claims he would be in serious danger. A dissenting judge argued Khalil’s constitutional claims merit immediate federal court review.

"Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve," Khalil said in a statement. "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. I will continue to fight ... ."

Khalil, born in Syria and holding Algerian citizenship, is a lawful permanent resident married to a U.S. citizen. He was pursuing a graduate degree at Columbia University and is among several foreign students the Trump administration has targeted for deportation over their criticism of Israel. Rights advocates argue that this campaign violates U.S. free speech rights by stifling criticism of a foreign nation.

Khalil’s case is advancing on two tracks: one in federal court through a habeas corpus petition, which argues that his detention was illegal, and another in the administrative immigration courts, which challenges his removal. The appeals panel sided with the government’s argument that only the immigration courts had jurisdiction over the matter, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

"Our holdings vindicate essential principles of habeas and immigration law," the court said. "The scheme Congress enacted governing immigration proceedings provides Khalil a meaningful forum in which to raise his claims later on—in a petition for review of a final order of removal. We will therefore VACATE and REMAND with instructions to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition."

Immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, not the independent judicial branch, raising questions on whether Khalil can receive a fair hearing for his claims. An immigration judge has already sided with the government in ruling that Khalil is deportable. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a seldom-used provision of the INA, asserting his authority to remove individuals he deems "adverse foreign policy consequences" for the U.S., to target Khalil and other pro-Palestine students.

In the immigration court system, Khalil can appeal his case to a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) before the case can be taken to a federal court of appeals. However, it’s not clear whether the immigration system will allow Khalil to adequately make an argument about the violation of his constitutional rights, namely free speech—a possibility highlighted by Judge Arianna Freeman in her dissenting opinion.

"Khalil claims that the government violated his fundamental constitutional rights. He has also alleged—and proven—irreparable injuries during his detention," Freeman wrote. "Precedent and principles of statutory interpretation lead me to conclude that 'it is most unlikely that Congress intended to foreclose all forms of meaningful judicial review' over his claims," she added, quoting from a 1991 Supreme Court ruling.

It is not clear how the ruling will immediately affect Khalil’s broader case and the ordeal of other students like him. Federal courts have released several students—including Turkish scholar Rumeysa Ozturk—based on habeas petitions. Last year, a judge ruled in a separate civil case that the Trump administration’s drive to deport pro-Palestine students based on their speech is illegal.

Khalil’s legal team can ask the entire Third Circuit Court to review the panel’s decision before taking the case to the Supreme Court. Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is helping represent the Palestinian activist, said Thursday’s ruling "undermines the role federal courts must play in preventing flagrant constitutional violations."

"The Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting Mahmoud Khalil, detaining him thousands of miles from home, and retaliating against him for his speech," Hodgson said in a statement. "Dissent is not grounds for detention or deportation, and we will continue to pursue all legal options to ensure Mahmoud’s rights are vindicated."