The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a district court order that had ordered the release of Mahmoud Khalil, ruling the New Jersey federal judge lacked jurisdiction and that immigration claims must follow the immigration court process. This decision clears a path for the Biden-appointed judge’s release order to be vacated and for immigration authorities to pursue the case through the proper removal proceedings. The case pits claims about green card fraud and alleged terrorist sympathies against procedural limits on where immigrants can challenge detention. The ruling is a win for the federal government, but it also highlights frustrations about forum-shopping and inconsistent lower-court actions.

Trump Admin Scores Big Win in Mahmoud Khalil Case, but the Ruling Will Still Infuriate You

The 3rd Circuit held on Thursday that the federal district court in New Jersey had no authority to order the release of Mahmoud Khalil, an Algerian national tied to pro-Palestinian activism. Khalil was facing deportation after agents concluded he failed to disclose connections and views supportive of terrorist activity on his green card application. That decision launched a legal fight spanning almost a year, moving through different courts and procedurally complex filings.

Back in June, a district judge appointed by Joe Biden accepted a habeas petition and ordered Khalil released, suggesting the revocation of his green card and deportation might be unconstitutional. That order paused deportation and freed Khalil from detention while litigation continued. The appeals court, however, found that the district court could not properly reach the matter because immigration law prescribes a different path for such challenges.

In plain terms, the 3rd Circuit said Khalil must pursue relief through the federal immigration courts rather than sidestepping that system. The panel’s 2-1 decision emphasized that the Immigration and Nationality Act directs removal and related disputes to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals first. That restores the statutory sequence and trims back what the majority saw as an improper attempt to use a district court as a shortcut.

A federal appeals court ruled on Thursday that a judge had no jurisdiction to order the release of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention, delivering President Trump’s administration a victory in its efforts to deport the pro-Palestinian activist.

The 2-1 ruling by a panel of the Philadelphia-based 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals opened the door to Khalil being re-arrested after it ordered the dismissal of a lawsuit he filed challenging his initial detention.

That holding came from US Circuit Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, both of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, who said that under the Immigration and Nationality Act, his claims needed to be instead heard through an appeal of a final order of removal from an immigration judge

That quoted passage lays out the appeals panel’s reasoning and notes the likely procedural consequences: the dismissal of the district-court lawsuit and the possibility of re-detention. The two judges who formed the majority were appointed by Republican presidents, and their approach favors following statutory procedures to the letter. The lone dissent raised concerns about access to justice, but the majority held that the statutory scheme must be respected.

Legally, the practical effect is straightforward: the release order has been vacated, and ICE has the option to re-detain Khalil while removal proceedings move forward in immigration court. His attorneys have pledged to continue fighting, likely seeking rehearing en banc and other appellate remedies. Given the 3rd Circuit’s conservative lean and the panel’s split, however, an en banc reversal is an uphill climb.

Politically, the case underscores a broader frustration on the right about lower-court judges issuing expansive rulings outside the clear bounds of statutory authority. When district courts entertain claims that Congress has assigned to specialized immigration tribunals, it undermines predictable enforcement of immigration laws. Critics argue that these maneuvers are a form of forum-shopping designed to secure sympathetic judges rather than follow established procedures.

For conservatives, the decision feels like a corrective: it reins in a district judge who intervened in a process Congress reserved for immigration courts and reasserts the administration’s authority to pursue removal when statutory requirements are met. Still, the episode also highlights how uneven judicial practices can create delays and confusion, forcing federal authorities to litigate jurisdictional battles before the core immigration questions are ever addressed.

Moving forward, expect Khalil’s case to return to immigration court for a full adjudication on the merits of the removal charge and any alleged fraud in his green card application. The appeals ruling eliminates the shortcut and reestablishes the normal procedural track, but it also leaves unresolved the deeper questions about judicial overreach and how easily cases can be diverted from the bodies designed to hear them.