Mahmoud Khalil's lawyers will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to block his deportation after the Third Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reconsider a ruling that clears the path for the government to remove him. The federal appeals court split 6, 5 against Khalil on Friday, Gothamist reported, affirming a lower court decision from January that sided with the Department of Justice on where the case should be heard.
The narrow vote, one judge short of a different outcome, means the Columbia University graduate and Algerian citizen will now try his luck at the highest court in the land. His attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU framed the case as a test of free speech rights for noncitizens. The government sees it differently: Secretary of State Marco Rubio has stated that Khalil's presence in the United States would have "serious adverse foreign policy consequences."
That framing matters. This is not a case about an American citizen facing criminal charges. It is a case about a lawful permanent resident, a green card holder, whom federal officials have moved to deport under a seldom-used statute targeting noncitizens whose beliefs are deemed to threaten U.S. foreign policy. The legal question is straightforward: does the government have the authority to remove someone on those grounds, and can a federal court even review the decision?
The appeals court's Friday ruling did not reach the constitutional questions Khalil's attorneys wanted answered. Instead, it addressed a procedural fight over venue, whether Khalil's case belongs in federal district court or immigration court. The DOJ argued immigration court was the proper forum. Khalil's lawyers wanted the case in federal court, where they believe they would receive broader judicial review of constitutional claims.
Six judges sided with the government. Five dissented.
Judge Cheryl Ann Krause wrote a dissent that did not mince words about what the majority's approach means for the judiciary's role in checking executive power:
"The Judiciary 'serves as an inseparable element of the constitutional system of checks and balances' protecting civil liberties and checking legislative and executive discretion. We cannot fulfill that role if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself."
Krause, as AP News reported, also wrote that the court was "abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil's constitutional claims." That language, from a sitting federal judge, not a defense attorney, is the kind of thing that catches the Supreme Court's attention.
The lower court's January decision had already opened the door to deportation. Friday's ruling locked it open.
ICE agents arrested Khalil in March 2025 at the start of President Trump's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists. Khalil had served as president of Columbia University's Palestinian Student Society and was a vocal critic of Israel's military operations in Gaza, which he called "a genocide." He helped organize a student encampment at Columbia, Just The News reported.
Federal officials accused Khalil of leading activities "aligned to Hamas," but they have not presented evidence or filed criminal charges to support that accusation. Khalil has dismissed the allegations as "baseless and ridiculous," calling his arrest "a direct consequence of exercising my right to free speech."
He spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail. His current detention status remains unclear from available reporting. The immigration appeals board has already rejected his bid to block deportation and issued a final removal order.
Khalil's legal team said they will petition the Supreme Court and seek an immediate stay to prevent the administration from removing him while the case is pending. Brett Max Kaufman, an ACLU senior counsel representing Khalil, told reporters that the Third Circuit's decision was not the last word.
"Federal 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. If the Trump administration can target, arrest, detain, and deport Mahmoud for his speech, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with."
Baher Azmy, legal director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, struck a similar note, calling the Third Circuit's ruling dangerous "not just for Mahmoud but for other non-citizens the administration has its vengeful sights upon." He described the ruling as greenlighting "prolonged, brutal detention conditions without access to meaningful judicial review in order to punish them and deter others from dissenting from U.S. foreign policy."
The Supreme Court already faces a crowded docket of consequential cases this term, including several Trump-era disputes with rulings expected within weeks. Whether the justices agree to take up Khalil's case, and on what timeline, remains an open question.
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani posted on X calling Khalil's arrest "a chilling act of political repression" and "an attack on all of our constitutional rights." That language is designed to blur a line the Constitution draws clearly.
Green card holders have significant legal protections. They also hold their status at the discretion of the federal government, subject to the immigration laws Congress has passed. The First Amendment does not grant noncitizens an unlimited right to organize political activity that the State Department determines threatens American foreign policy, particularly when the statute authorizing removal has been on the books and available to every administration.
The Trump administration used an existing legal tool. Whether it used that tool wisely, or whether the government's foreign-policy rationale holds up under judicial scrutiny, is exactly the kind of question courts exist to answer. But the progressive framing, that any enforcement action against a politically active noncitizen is inherently repressive, ignores the basic architecture of immigration law.
The Supreme Court has already shown signs of division over the administration's broader immigration enforcement posture. Khalil's case could sharpen that divide further.
There is a real legal issue buried under the political noise. The Third Circuit did not say Khalil has no constitutional rights. It said he is raising those claims in the wrong courtroom. The majority pointed him toward immigration court, a system run by the executive branch, not the judiciary.
That distinction matters more than it sounds. Immigration judges work under the Department of Justice. Asking a DOJ employee to rule on whether the DOJ is violating someone's rights creates an obvious structural problem. The dissenting judges saw this clearly. So will the Supreme Court, if it takes the case.
The government's position is not unreasonable on its face: immigration law has its own review process, and channeling cases through it is standard practice. But the facts here are unusual. The administration is not alleging Khalil overstayed a visa or committed a crime. It is invoking a rarely used foreign-policy statute. The question of whether that kind of action deserves independent judicial review, real review, not executive self-review, is legitimate.
Federal appeals courts have been active battlegrounds in the ongoing legal fights over Trump administration policy, as seen when a different circuit blocked the administration's asylum proclamation earlier this year.
The DOJ did not immediately respond to requests for comment after Friday's ruling, Newsmax reported. Khalil's attorneys said they would move quickly to file with the Supreme Court and seek emergency relief.
Several questions remain unanswered. What specific evidence, if any, does the government have linking Khalil to Hamas beyond the accusation? What are the precise detention conditions his attorneys describe as "brutal"? And will the Supreme Court agree to hear the case at all, or let the Third Circuit's procedural ruling stand?
The 6, 5 split alone suggests the legal questions are close. One vote the other way, and Khalil's case would have gone back for full constitutional review. That kind of margin tends to draw the Supreme Court's interest.
Conservatives should welcome judicial review here, not fear it. If the government's case is strong, it will survive scrutiny. If it is not, taxpayers deserve to know before the precedent hardens. The right answer to bad speech has never been unchecked executive power, it is the rule of law, applied honestly and in the open.