Khalil's attorneys turn to Supreme Court over deportation ruling

Mahmoud Khalil’s attorneys plan to seek intervention from the US Supreme Court after a federal appeals court decision that could allow his deportation. The move follows a ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld a January decision reversing a lower court’s order to release Khalil on bail. The court’s decision is the latest development in Khalil’s ongoing legal battle against the government’s actions, which his lawyers argue set a dangerous precedent for non-citizens.

The appeals court’s ruling marked a significant setback for Khalil, who remains a US permanent resident married to a US citizen. His legal team, including Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights, emphasized that the decision “greenlights prolonged detention without meaningful judicial review” to punish dissent. Azmy warned that the ruling could embolden the administration to target others who challenge US foreign policy.

The Third Circuit’s decision was split, with six judges voting against Khalil’s request to overturn the earlier ruling and five in favor. Dissenting judges criticized the majority for “ignoring canons,” “straining precedent,” and endangering civil liberties. They argued the judiciary’s role as a check on executive power is undermined if courts exclude themselves from immigration cases.

Khalil’s attorneys aim to delay the implementation of the ruling while they pursue a Supreme Court appeal. They also filed a motion to reopen his immigration case, citing evidence that the Trump administration improperly fast-tracked it. The government’s handling of Khalil’s case has drawn scrutiny, with critics calling the immigration court process a “sham” designed to expedite deportations.

Khalil, a former Columbia University student, was detained in March 2025 as part of a broader crackdown on pro-Palestine advocates. He had mediated between the university and student protesters during the 2024 encampments. His legal team previously argued that his detention violated constitutional rights, a claim upheld by a federal court before being overturned on jurisdictional grounds.

The government initially justified Khalil’s detention under a McCarthy-era immigration statute, claiming he posed a threat to US foreign policy by opposing antisemitism. However, courts have questioned this rationale, with a Boston judge last fall calling pro-Palestine detentions “unconstitutional” and aimed at silencing speech. Immigration officials reportedly used dossiers from far-right groups to identify targets.

Khalil has remained vocal about his stance, condemning the administration’s efforts to deport him as an attempt to intimidate free speech advocates. He emphasized his opposition to antisemitism, stating it has “no place” in the Palestine solidarity movement. His lawyers argue that the appeals court’s decision blocks detainees from challenging their removal on First Amendment grounds until immigration proceedings conclude—regardless of how long or unconstitutional those proceedings may be.

The Supreme Court’s potential involvement could reshape how immigration courts handle constitutional claims. For now, Khalil’s case highlights tensions between executive authority and judicial oversight. His lawyers warn that the ruling could leave detainees with no recourse until their cases are resolved—a process that may take years.