A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday granted pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil a temporary reprieve, allowing him to remain free while he takes his legal battle against the Trump administration to the Supreme Court.
Judge Thomas Hardiman of the 3rd Circuit, a George W. Bush appointee, halted the circuit court's earlier decision that Khalil's case must first go through immigration courts. This stay gives Khalil time to seek relief from the nation's highest court.
Background of the Case
Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and green card holder, was arrested last year by federal immigration agents while he was a graduate student at Columbia University. He had been involved in on-campus protests against Israel's military operations in Gaza in 2024 and participated in negotiations with the university's administration.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that Khalil posed a national security threat, leading to his detention. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz, a Biden appointee, ordered Khalil's release last June after more than 100 days in custody, ruling that the Trump administration's actions were unconstitutional.
Legal Developments
The circuit court on Friday overturned Farbiarz's order, saying he lacked authority to free Khalil and bar his removal from the country. In response, Khalil's legal team argued that this ruling put him at "imminent risk of detention (and removal)" before the Supreme Court could weigh in.
Khalil requested that the appeals court "issue an administrative stay" of its own mandate for 30 days or a shorter period deemed "equitable" to allow him to pursue Supreme Court review. Hardiman's order grants that request.
Broader Implications
The case has drawn attention amid ongoing debates over free speech and national security. The Trump administration's aggressive stance on immigration enforcement has faced legal challenges, including in other contexts such as mandating NDAs for federal workers to curb leaks.
The Hill has reached out to the Department of Homeland Security for comment on the latest ruling.
Legal experts note that the Supreme Court's handling of this case could set precedents for how immigration courts interact with federal judicial oversight, especially in politically charged cases. The Court's recent redistricting ruling has already sparked accusations of partisan bias, and this case may further test the judiciary's role in immigration policy.
