Appeals court sidesteps constitutional protections in Palestinian organizer detention case
A federal appeals court reversed a lower court decision releasing Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention Thursday, dealing a major blow to constitutional protections for political speech. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 decision, ruled that the federal district court in New Jersey lacked jurisdiction over immigration matters, instructing the lower court to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition that had secured his release in June. The ruling brings the Trump administration closer to detaining and potentially deporting the Columbia University graduate student who became a prominent leader of campus protests against Israel’s conduct in Gaza.
The Khalil Case Explained
Mahmoud Khalil was arrested at his apartment March 8, 2025, by Homeland Security Investigations agents and spent three months detained in a Louisiana immigration jail, missing the birth of his firstborn son. Federal officials accused Khalil of leading activities aligned to Hamas, presenting no evidence supporting the claim and not accusing him of criminal conduct. Khalil dismissed allegations as baseless and ridiculous, framing his arrest as retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights to advocate for Palestinian freedom.
A Constitutional Ruling Reversed
In June, Federal Judge Michael Farbiarz of New Jersey ruled that the Trump administration’s detention of Khalil likely violated his constitutional rights and ordered his release. The judge found the government’s justification for detention would likely be declared unconstitutional. However, the appeals court sidestepped the constitutional issue entirely, ruling instead on a technical jurisdictional question about which court should handle the case.
Mamdani Responds Firmly
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani responded swiftly to the appeals court ruling, calling it an attack on constitutional rights. Mamdani wrote that Khalil’s arrest represented political repression and that the crackdown on pro-Palestinian free speech must stop. The mayor emphasized that Khalil must remain free and that the government’s actions violated rights not just of one activist but of all Americans exercising free speech.
What Khalil Faces Now
While the appeals court ruling does not immediately result in Khalil’s rearrest, it potentially enables the government to move forward with deportation proceedings. Khalil’s legal team has 45 days to appeal the decision and is considering requesting review by the full Circuit before pursuing further appeals. The case also remains in the immigration court system, where a judge sided with the government finding Khalil deportable.
A Broader Attack on Dissent
Khalil’s case is not isolated. Other pro-Palestinian activists detained by the Trump administration are fighting deportation, including former Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi and Tufts doctoral student Rumeysa Ozturk. Civil rights organizations argue the campaign represents an unprecedented effort to suppress constitutionally protected speech through immigration enforcement. The New York Civil Liberties Union, representing Khalil, called the ruling a dangerous precedent undermining the role federal courts must play preventing constitutional violations.
System Failures and Safeguards
The ruling highlights a troubling pattern where immigration courts lack independence to fairly review constitutional claims. Immigration courts are part of the Justice Department, not the independent judiciary, raising legitimate concerns about whether activists can receive fair hearings. Federal judges have historically provided crucial safeguards against government overreach, but the appeals court decision constrains their ability in immigration cases.
The Continuing Fight
Khalil vowed to exhaust all legal options to fight the Trump administration’s deportation efforts, expressing determination to continue his advocacy for Palestinian rights and justice. His case has become a focal point for civil rights advocates concerned about government weaponization of immigration enforcement against political opponents. Mayor Mamdani’s vocal support sends a message that the city government stands with immigrants facing persecution based on their political beliefs. The broader implications of the appeals court decision extend far beyond one activist’s fate, suggesting constitutional protections may be eroding in immigration proceedings across the country. The legal structure itself may prove more important than any single court ruling as Khalil’s attorneys work to preserve his status. Organizations like the ACLU remain involved while New York Civil Liberties Union guides strategy and immigration law help assists with Department standards.
