Appeals Panel Overturns Lower Court’s Order for Mahmoud Khalil’s Release
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit recently made a significant ruling concerning Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University activist facing deportation. The three-judge panel determined that the district court lacked the authority to order Khalil’s release, overturning a lower court’s decision.
Details of the Appeals Court Ruling
On Thursday, the panel ruled 2-1 that the U.S. District Court for New Jersey did not have the jurisdiction to consider Khalil’s habeas corpus petition. This decision reflects the complex interplay of immigration law and habeas principles.
Key Points from the Judgement
- The panel emphasized that Khalil can still present his claims in a petition for review after a final removal order.
- The ruling serves as a notable win for the Trump administration’s immigration policies.
- Khalil’s detention could continue as his case develops, raising concerns among his supporters.
Khalil is a green card holder of Palestinian descent who was detained in March. His arrest stemmed from a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who asserted that Khalil’s activities might compromise U.S. foreign policy interests. His legal team contends that the administration’s actions were part of a broader agenda to penalize foreign students protesting against Israel.
Previous Court Decisions
In June, Judge Michael Farbiarz approved Khalil’s habeas petition, noting he posed no threat to the community and highlighted the unusual nature of his detention. However, concurrent with this, a separate immigration judge was evaluating the government’s motion to deport Khalil.
Arguments Presented
- The immigration judge suggested deportation options to Algeria or Syria.
- Khalil’s legal team is actively challenging this potential deportation.
The appeals panel, comprising judges Thomas Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Arianna Freeman, clarified that while the district court was able to hear Khalil’s petition, it did not possess the necessary subject-matter jurisdiction. According to the ruling, the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) dictates the processes for addressing such cases.
Judicial Opinions
Hardiman and Bibas aligned in favor of the government, with their appointments tracing back to Presidents George W. Bush and Trump, respectively. In contrast, Judge Freeman dissented, arguing for the district court’s jurisdiction over Khalil’s case.
This ruling may set a precedent for similar cases involving immigration and national security, inviting further discourse on the application of the INA in such matters.
