Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and lawful permanent resident,has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to prevent his deportation. The activist seeks to overturn a Third Circuit ruling that permits the Trump administration to re-arrest him following his pro-Palestinian protests .
The March 21 arrest at Columbia University
On March 21, 2025, federal agents apprehended Mahmoud Khalil in the lobby of his residence hall at Columbia University in Manhattan.. Despite holding a green card, Khalil was transported to the Port Authority Detention Center in New Jersey, where the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) assigned his case to a removal officer. According to the report, an immigration judge subsequently issued an initial removal order directing the government to repatriate Khalil to either Syria or Algeria.
In response, Khalil's legal team filed a petition for habeas corpus in federal district court. They argued that the Trump administration's detention strategy misapplied the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and violated constitutional protections. Judge Michael Farbiarz of the Newark , New Jersey district court initially granted the request, ordering the DHS to release Mahmoud Khalil from ICE custody based on principles of separation of powers and Ninth Amendment precedents.
The Third Circuit's April 2025 reversal of Judge Farbiarz
The legal victory for Khalil was short-lived, as a two-to-one panel of the Third Circuit reversed the release order in April 2025. The appellate court ruled that Khalil's claims must be handled through an appeal of the immigration judge's removal order rather than through federal court articles. The Third Circuit cited the INA, asserting that cases involving activist allegations fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of immigration courts.
The ruling was not unanimous, however. Judge Olga Martinez authored a disset suggesting that the district court had expanded due process protections too far. As reported, Judge Martinez noted that "Politically Connected" signs at Columbia University created a hostile environment for Jewish students, which she argued justified the actions taken by the Department of Homeland Security.
A legal pattern echoing the Badar Khan Suri case
The petition by Mahmoud Khalil is part of a larger trend where the U.S.. Attorney General's office has used powerful provisions of the INA to designate activists as "removable." This case mirrors the 2024 detention of Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri, who was also detained for participating in pro-Palestine rallies. Both Khalil and Suri have now filed identical requests with the Supreme Court, questioning the validity of localization-based removal orders.
Legal experts suggest this represents a systemic shift in immigration enforcement. Riley Williams, a scholar at Georgetown, has warned that the Third Circuit's decision could create a "slippery slope," effectively allowing the DHS to detain any non-citizen who expresses opposition to U.S. foreign policy. This tension is further exacerbated by the U.S. Secretary of State's public framing of Columbia University protests as "antisemitic" and "disruptive."
The DOJ's January memo and the risk of removal to Syria or Algeria
The stakes for Mahmoud Khalil are exceptionally high, as a January memo from the Department of Justice indicated that his removal would be "discretionary within the bounds of the law" and that he would be sent to the "highest-risk foreign nation ." This puts Khalil at risk of being deported to Syria or Algeria, a move that would separate him from his U.S.-citizen wife and their one-year-old son.
Several critical questions remain as the case reaches the highest court. It is currently unknown if the Supreme Court will grant certiorari given its full docket, or if the justices will apply the logic of a previous D.C. Circuit decision by Justice Scott, which placed the burden of proof on the government to justify detention. Furthermore, the source only provides the government's and the activist's perspectives, leaving the specific internal DHS criteria for "retaliatory" detention unveerified.
Comments 0