A federal appeals court unanimously reversed the lower court order that freed Columbia University activist Mohsen Mahdawi from immigration detention, a ruling the Trump administration called a "big win for the rule of law."
A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday that the Vermont federal judge who ordered Mahdawi's release never had the authority to hear the case in the first place. The 41-page opinion, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Debra Livingston, a George W. Bush appointee, found that Mahdawi's habeas petition should have gone through the immigration court system before landing in a federal district court. The decision strips away the legal shield that had kept the 35-year-old West Bank-born permanent resident out of custody since shortly after his arrest.
The ruling marks the second time a federal appeals court has shut down a lower court's attempt to intervene on behalf of a Columbia-affiliated anti-Israel activist facing deportation proceedings. A similar decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia earlier this year reached the same conclusion in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, another Columbia figure who spent more than 100 days in immigration detention before his release. Together, the two rulings establish a clear pattern: federal district courts cannot be used as a shortcut around the immigration system Congress built.
U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford, an Obama appointee based in Vermont, had ordered Mahdawi released on bond roughly two weeks after Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested him in April. Crawford concluded that Mahdawi was not a flight risk and that noncitizens enjoy the same First Amendment speech protections as U.S. citizens. That reasoning formed the basis of his order freeing Mahdawi while the case proceeded.
The 2nd Circuit dismantled that reasoning on jurisdictional grounds without ever addressing the merits. As the Washington Examiner reported, Judge Livingston wrote for the panel:
"The district court granted his motion for release pending review of this habeas petition on the basis that Mahdawi would likely succeed in showing that the government unlawfully targeted him based on First Amendment protected activity. We conclude that the district court should not have reached this question because it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the habeas petition."
In plain terms, the appeals court said Crawford overstepped. Immigration law channels removal disputes through immigration courts and then through a specific appellate review process. By stepping in with a habeas order before Mahdawi had exhausted that process, Crawford bypassed the system Congress designed. The 2nd Circuit said that was wrong, regardless of the underlying speech claims.
The ruling did not order Mahdawi taken back into custody. But it removed the legal basis for his release, which AP News reported opens the door to his re-arrest and deportation.
Brett Schumate, assistant attorney general for civil rights at the Justice Department, posted on X after the ruling:
"Big win for the rule of law: The Second Circuit makes clear that habeas can't be used as an end‑run around Congress's immigration removal-review scheme."
That language matters. The Trump administration has argued that certain noncitizen activists' continued presence in the United States could harm U.S. foreign policy interests, a legal theory that civil-liberties groups contend punishes constitutionally protected speech. The jurisdictional ruling sidesteps that debate entirely. It does not resolve whether the government can deport someone for protest activity. It says federal district courts are not the place to litigate that question first.
The administration has been winning a string of legal battles on immigration enforcement, and this decision fits squarely into that pattern. By keeping these cases inside the immigration court system, the government retains more control over the timeline and the forum.
Mahdawi, for his part, called the decision "a grave setback." He claimed it would hand the government "the power to intimidate, censor, and punish dissent without meaningful restraint," as the New York Post reported.
Mahdawi became a prominent figure during the anti-Israel demonstrations that swept Columbia University in 2024. His lawyers have portrayed him as a peaceful Buddhist opposed to violence. But federal prosecutors introduced a different picture in court filings.
A Vermont gun store owner told law enforcement that during a 2015 visit, Mahdawi claimed he had substantial firearms experience and had built modified 9mm submachine guns "to kill Jews" while in Palestinian territory. The store owner said Mahdawi made similar remarks to another gun enthusiast. Mahdawi has not been charged with a crime in connection with those allegations or any other.
After Hamas's Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, Canary Mission, an organization that compiles profiles of alleged antisemitic activists, cited Mahdawi's statement: "Hamas is the product of the Israeli occupation." That statement, combined with his visible role in the Columbia protests, drew attention to his immigration status.
ICE arrested Mahdawi in Vermont when he arrived for an interview connected to his U.S. citizenship petition. The government placed him in deportation proceedings. Crawford's bond order came roughly two weeks later, and lasted until Tuesday's reversal. The administration has been investing heavily in immigration enforcement, and cases like Mahdawi's test how far that authority extends when it intersects with campus protest activity.
The Mahdawi ruling mirrors what happened in the Mahmoud Khalil case. Khalil, another Columbia-affiliated anti-Israel activist, was held in immigration detention for more than 100 days before his release. The 3rd Circuit in Philadelphia concluded in January that Khalil's claims belonged in the immigration system before reaching federal court, the same jurisdictional logic the 2nd Circuit applied to Mahdawi.
Two different appellate courts, covering two of the most legally significant circuits in the country, reached the same conclusion independently. Federal district judges cannot use habeas petitions to pull noncitizens out of immigration detention before the immigration court process has run its course. That consensus makes it considerably harder for future detainees to forum-shop their way into a sympathetic district court.
The broader legal landscape has been shifting in the administration's favor on immigration enforcement. A recent Fifth Circuit ruling handed the DOJ another win on immigration policy, and courts across the country have increasingly deferred to the executive branch's authority over removal proceedings.
Civil-liberties groups still argue that targeting noncitizens for deportation based on protest activity violates the First Amendment. That argument is not dead, the 2nd Circuit's ruling explicitly avoided the merits of the speech question. But the practical effect is clear: those claims now have to be raised inside the immigration court system, where the government sets the pace and the procedural rules favor enforcement.
Newsmax noted the ruling represents a legal victory for the administration's crackdown on noncitizen protesters involved in anti-Israel demonstrations. Whether Mahdawi will be re-arrested remains an open question. The appeals court did not order him back into custody, but it erased the legal order that kept him free.
Courts have also been wrestling with the boundaries of ICE detention authority in other contexts, making these jurisdictional questions part of a much larger fight over how far executive power reaches in immigration enforcement.
Congress built the immigration court system for a reason. When federal judges bypass it to free detained noncitizens on speech-rights theories, they substitute their own judgment for the process the law requires. Two appeals courts have now said the same thing: follow the system first, argue the Constitution after.