DOJ Challenges Judge’s Block on Mahmoud Khalil’s Removal as ‘Indefensible’
In a legal battle concerning activist Mahmoud Khalil, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has challenged a lower court’s blocking of Khalil’s detention and removal. This argument took place at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, where DOJ attorney Drew Ensign deemed the lower court’s ruling “fundamentally flawed.”
Background of Mahmoud Khalil’s Case
Khalil, a pro-Palestine activist and Columbia University graduate, has faced accusations related to immigration violations linked to his political advocacy. Since March, he has fought to remain in the U.S. after allegations emerged that his speech contradicted U.S. national security interests.
Key Events in the Legal Proceedings
- March 2023: Khalil is accused of immigration law violations.
- June 2023: New Jersey District Judge Michael Farbiarz, appointed by President Biden, halts Khalil’s removal, citing violations of his First Amendment rights.
- June 20, 2025: Khalil is released from federal immigration detention.
The DOJ claims the New Jersey district court lacked jurisdiction in Khalil’s case. Ensign argued that the correct forum for such matters should be immigration courts, where decisions about removal can be properly appealed, saying, “Habeas is the path the petitioner has chosen.” He criticized the district court’s injunction against Khalil’s removal as “indefensible.”
Challenges Surrounding the Case
Ensign’s position highlights the ongoing conflict over the constitutional rights of noncitizens. Khalil’s legal team is also contesting recent allegations regarding his green card application, introduced in response to the Trump administration’s accusations. Despite these legal complexities, one judge from the appellate panel acknowledged that Khalil’s attorneys had valid reasons to file a habeas corpus petition in New Jersey, given the uncertainty of their client’s location during his initial detention.
The appellate court’s judges have not disclosed when they will render their decision. As this case unfolds, it illustrates the intricate intersection of immigration law, free speech rights, and the broader implications for noncitizen advocacy within U.S. legal frameworks.
