US court hands Trump victory against pro-Palestine activist Mahmoud Khalil

An appeals court panel in the United States has moved to dismiss a petition by Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil challenging his detention and deportation, handing a boost to the administration of President Donald Trump.

In a two-to-one ruling on Thursday, the judges concluded that the federal court that ordered Khalil’s release last year lacked jurisdiction over the matter.

The ruling potentially enables the re-arrest of Khalil, who missed the birth of his first child while he was detained by immigration authorities last year. But the order does not go into effect immediately, and Khalil has signalled that he plans to appeal.

“Today’s ruling is deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve,” Khalil said in a statement.

“The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”

The Palestinian activist, born in Syria and holding Algerian citizenship, is a lawful permanent resident and married to a US citizen.

Khalil, who was pursuing a graduate degree at Columbia University in New York, is one of dozens of foreign students that the Trump administration has targeted for deportation over their criticism of Israel.

Rights advocates argue that the campaign violates US free speech rights to stifle criticism of a foreign nation.

On Thursday, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani voiced concern about the ruling.

“Last year’s arrest of Mahmoud Khalil was more than just a chilling act of political repression, it was an attack on all of our constitutional rights,” Mamdani wrote on X. “Now, as the crackdown on pro-Palestinian free speech continues, Mahmoud is being threatened with rearrest. Mahmoud is free – and must remain free.”

Khalil’s case was advancing on two tracks: one in federal court through a habeas corpus petition, which argued that his detention was illegal, and another in the administrative immigration courts, which challenged his removal.

The appeals panel sided with the government’s argument that only the immigration courts had jurisdiction over the matter, in accordance with the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA).

“Our holdings vindicate essential principles of habeas and immigration law,” the court said.

“The scheme Congress enacted governing immigration proceedings provides Khalil a meaningful forum in which to raise his claims later on—in a petition for review of a final order of removal. We will therefore VACATE and REMAND with instructions to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition.”

Immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, not the independent judicial branch, raising questions on whether Khalil can receive a fair hearing to his claims.

An immigration judge has already sided with the government in ruling that Khalil is deportable.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has invoked a seldom-used provision of the INA, asserting his authority to remove individuals he deems “adverse foreign policy consequences” for the US, to target Khalil and other pro-Palestine students.

In the immigration court system, Khalil can appeal his case to a Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) before the case can be taken to a federal court of appeals.

But it’s not clear whether the immigration system will allow Khalil to adequately make an argument about the violation of his constitutional rights, namely free speech – a possibility highlighted by Judge Arianna Freeman in her dissenting opinion.

“Khalil claims that the government violated his fundamental constitutional rights. He has also alleged— andproven —irreparable injuries during his detention,” Freeman wrote.

“Precedent and principles of statutory interpretation lead me to conclude that ‘it is most unlikely that Congress intended to foreclose all forms of meaningful judicial review’ over his claims,” she added, quoting from a 1991 Supreme Court ruling.

It is not clear how the ruling will immediately affect Khalil’s broader case and the ordeal of other students like him. Federal courts have released several students – including Turkish scholar Rumeysa Ozturk – based on habeas petitions.

Last year, a judge ruled in a separate civil case that the Trump administration’s drive to deport pro-Palestine students based on their speech is illegal.

Khalil’s legal team can ask the entire Third Circuit Court to review the panel’s decision before taking the came to the Supreme Court.

Bobby Hodgson, deputy legal director at the New York Civil Liberties Union, which is helping represent the Palestinian activist, said Thursday’s ruling “undermines the role federal courts must play in preventing flagrant constitutional violations”.

“The Trump administration violated the Constitution by targeting Mahmoud Khalil, detaining him thousands of miles from home, and retaliating against him for his speech,” Hodgson said in a statement.

“Dissent is not grounds for detention or deportation, and we will continue to pursue all legal options to ensure Mahmoud’s rights are vindicated.”