Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate who became one of the most visible faces of pro-Palestinian campus protests in the United States, is preparing to take his legal battle to the nation’s highest court after a divided federal appeals court refused to block the Trump administration from pursuing his deportation.
The ruling from the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals leaves Khalil exposed to possible re-arrest by immigration authorities, a prospect his legal team says threatens both civil liberties and political dissent in America.
In a sharply split 6-5 decision, the appeals court declined to revisit an earlier judgment that stripped a lower court judge of authority to order Khalil’s release from immigration detention. The divide mirrored ideological fault lines within the judiciary, with judges appointed by Republican presidents forming the majority.
Khalil’s lawyers immediately signaled they would seek emergency intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing the decision effectively allows the government to jail non-citizens for extended periods while limiting access to meaningful judicial review.
Baher Azmy, one of Khalil’s attorneys, blasted the ruling as a dangerous precedent that could be used to silence critics of U.S. foreign policy.
The legal team also moved quickly to prevent the appeals court ruling from formally taking effect on May 29 while the Supreme Court challenge is pending. Without that pause, Khalil could again be taken into custody by immigration authorities.
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the court’s decision and reiterated that it intends to enforce Khalil’s removal order. A department spokesperson said Khalil should voluntarily leave the country using the government’s CBP Home app before authorities move to detain and deport him.
Khalil, an Algerian citizen born in a Palestinian refugee camp in Syria, held lawful permanent resident status in the United States when immigration agents arrested him in March 2025 inside his university residence in Manhattan.
His detention quickly drew national attention, particularly because he had emerged as a leading organizer in demonstrations condemning Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.
He was later released from a Louisiana immigration detention facility after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered federal authorities to free him. But that decision was overturned earlier this year by a 2-1 appellate panel, which ruled that challenges tied to deportation proceedings must move through immigration courts rather than federal district courts.
The latest refusal to rehear the case deepens that setback.
Among the dissenters was U.S. Circuit Judge Cheryl Ann Krause, who warned that the judiciary risks surrendering its constitutional role if courts step aside during disputes involving executive power and immigration detention.
“We cannot fulfill that role if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself,” she wrote.
The case now appears headed toward a broader constitutional clash over immigration powers, judicial oversight and the boundaries of political protest in the United States.
