A federal appeals court on Friday declined to review Mahmoud Khalil’s case, a decision that a spokeswoman for Mr. Khalil said would prompt him to appeal to the Supreme Court as he tries to stave off his deportation.
Mr. Khalil, 31, is a Columbia University graduate who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents last March and quickly became the face of President Trump’s crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus demonstrators. His immigration case has been sped through courts controlled by the executive branch, even as his lawyers have sought to stop his deportation in federal court, arguing that the case against him violates the First Amendment.
The White House has said that Mr. Khalil’s presence in the United States spreads antisemitism, flying in the face of Mr. Trump’s foreign policy agenda. They have cited his prominent role in the protests that rocked Columbia’s campus in 2024 while making unsubstantiated accusations, including that he distributed pro-Hamas fliers. Mr. Khalil, a legal permanent resident who is married to an American, has denounced antisemitism and said that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic.
On Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which hears cases that originate in New Jersey, declined to review a January decision by three of its own judges that opened the door for Mr. Khalil to be arrested again.
That decision did not get into the issues at the heart of the case. Rather, it addressed the question of which of the two courts where Mr. Khalil’s case was proceeding — the Federal District Court or immigration court — was entitled to opine on the Constitutional issues in Mr. Khalil’s case. Mr. Khalil argued that the district court had the right to weigh in; the government said that the issues belonged in immigration court.
By ruling against Mr. Khalil then, and declining to revisit the decision on Friday, the Third Circuit set up the possibility that the remaining barriers preventing him from being deported could be dissolved.
Mr. Khalil’s lawyers have already asked the Third Circuit to halt the impact of its Friday decision while they appeal to the Supreme Court on those jurisdictional issues.
If the circuit disagrees, the lawyers will ask the Supreme Court itself to halt the impact of Friday’s ruling as it decides whether to review the jurisdictional issues. (Even if Mr. Khalil were to be deported, his case — including, eventually, the First Amendment issues that have made it the subject of intense public interest — would continue to be litigated.)
“We hope the Supreme Court will recognize how dangerous the Third Circuit’s decision was, not just for Mahmoud but for other noncitizens the administration has its vengeful sights upon,” said Baher Azmy, a lawyer for Mr. Khalil and legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
The Justice Department said in a statement that it was pleased that the full Third Circuit had declined “to rehear the panel’s correct decision.”
“Should he choose to pursue it further, we will continue to defend against this baseless challenge, as well as other similarly baseless challenges nationwide,” the statement said.
If neither the Third Circuit nor the Supreme Court grant Mr. Khalil’s request to halt the ruling’s impact, the case will return to Federal District Court after a week, most likely requiring the judge who has handled Mr. Khalil’s case there, Michael E. Farbiarz, to dismiss his original petition seeking release.
Judge Farbiarz had issued an order preventing Mr. Khalil from being removed from the country, but that order was attached to his petition seeking release. If the petition is null, the order will likely be mooted and the United States could deport Mr. Khalil.
However, there is another wrinkle. Mr. Khalil’s immigration court case, which has proceeded along a separate track, can now be appealed to a different court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit — which hears cases that originate in Louisiana. Mr. Khalil’s lawyers could also ask that court to halt his deportation.
The Friday decision split the Third Circuit. Six judges voted to deny Mr. Khalil’s request, while five dissented. The majority did not elaborate on its rationale. Three of the dissenting judges wrote that the ruling would imperil Mr. Khalil’s civil liberties and those of other noncitizens in similar situations.
Mr. Khalil was held in a Louisiana detention center for months last year after he was arrested, missing the birth of his child. He was freed in June, but his immigration case proceeded apace. In April, an immigration court that is part of the Justice Department affirmed that he could be deported, an unusually quick decision that was also characterized by other irregularities. After The New York Times reported on those irregularities, Mr. Khalil’s lawyers asked that court to reopen its case.
The first indication that the Third Circuit would not review Mr. Khalil’s case came earlier Friday, when Emil Bove, a judge on the circuit who was a top Justice Department official when Mr. Khalil was arrested, declined to weigh in on Mr. Khalil’s lawyers’ request that he recuse himself, writing that the issue was moot. He did not participate in the vote.
Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in the New York region for The Times. He is focused on political influence and its effect on the rule of law in the area’s federal and state courts.
The post Mahmoud Khalil to Appeal to Supreme Court in Effort to Halt Deportation appeared first on New York Times.
