A federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a narrow victory Friday, declining to reconsider a ruling that clears the path for the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, the 31-year-old Columbia University graduate who became the most visible face of the White House crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activism. Khalil's legal team now says it will take the fight to the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit voted 6-5 against reconsidering a January decision that sided with the government on a threshold jurisdictional question, which court system has the authority to hear Khalil's constitutional claims. That razor-thin margin means the earlier three-judge ruling stands, and the remaining legal barriers between Khalil and removal from the country could dissolve quickly.
A spokeswoman for Khalil said the decision would prompt an appeal to the Supreme Court, where his lawyers plan to seek an immediate stay preventing the administration from deporting him while the justices consider the case.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested Khalil in March 2025. He is a legal permanent resident married to an American citizen, and his lawyers have argued from the start that the case against him violates the First Amendment. The White House has said Khalil's presence in the United States "spreads antisemitism" and conflicts with President Trump's foreign policy agenda, citing his prominent role in Columbia University's 2024 pro-Palestinian protests and accusing him of distributing pro-Hamas fliers.
Khalil has said that criticism of Israel is not inherently antisemitic and has denounced antisemitism.
Federal officials accused Khalil of leading activities "aligned to Hamas," but as Newsmax reported, the government has not presented evidence or filed criminal charges to back that accusation. The gap between the accusation and the evidentiary record is one reason civil liberties groups have rallied behind Khalil's case, and one reason the government has preferred to route the dispute through immigration courts rather than federal district court.
That jurisdictional question is the hinge of the entire legal battle. Khalil's lawyers argued that a federal district court had the right to weigh in on his constitutional claims. The government countered that those issues belonged in immigration court, a system controlled by the executive branch. In January, a three-judge panel on the Third Circuit sided with the government.
A federal judge had previously ordered Khalil's release from immigration detention, but the administration appealed, and the Third Circuit's ruling effectively reversed that order. Khalil was detained for three months following his arrest, according to the New York Post.
Friday's decision not to rehear the case en banc came down to a single vote. The five dissenting judges did not mince words. Judge Cheryl Ann Krause wrote in dissent:
"The Judicial Branch... cannot fulfill its role as a check on the other branches of government, if we write ourselves out of relevance and leave the Executive Branch to check itself."
That language frames the stakes plainly. If immigration courts, staffed by executive-branch appointees, are the only venue where a legal permanent resident can challenge deportation on constitutional grounds, the executive branch effectively becomes judge and jury in its own enforcement actions. That is the argument Khalil's team will now press before the Supreme Court.
The high court has already found itself at the center of multiple clashes with the Trump administration over immigration policy. The justices appeared poised earlier this term to reject the president's executive order on birthright citizenship, and the administration's use of emergency appeals has drawn public complaints from Justice Sotomayor.
ACLU senior counsel Brett Max Kaufman, who represents Khalil, signaled confidence despite the loss. As Just The News reported, Kaufman stated:
"Federal courts must have the power to step in when the government exploits our country's immigration system to punish people for their constitutionally protected speech."
Kaufman also warned that the precedent reaches far beyond one Columbia activist: "If the Trump administration can target, arrest, detain, and deport Mahmoud for his speech, they can do it to anyone expressing an opinion they disagree with."
Conservatives should be clear-eyed about what this case actually involves. The government has not charged Khalil with a crime. It has not presented evidence of material support for terrorism. It has accused a legal permanent resident of speech-related conduct, organizing protests, distributing fliers, and moved to deport him through an administrative system where the executive branch controls the courtroom.
That should give anyone who values constitutional order a moment of serious reflection. The First Amendment exists precisely to protect speech the government finds objectionable. If the administration's theory holds, that immigration courts alone can adjudicate a permanent resident's free-speech claims, the precedent does not stop with pro-Palestinian activists. It extends to anyone the next administration decides is inconvenient.
None of this means Khalil is a sympathetic figure. His role in the Columbia encampments placed him at the center of protests that disrupted campus life and, in many cases, crossed the line from political expression into harassment and intimidation of Jewish students. The White House's concern about antisemitism on campuses is well-founded. But concern about antisemitism and respect for due process are not mutually exclusive.
The proper remedy for hateful or disruptive speech on a university campus is enforcement of campus conduct codes, and where laws are broken, criminal prosecution with full constitutional protections. Deportation through an executive-branch court system, without criminal charges, is a shortcut, and shortcuts in government power have a way of expanding.
The New York Times noted that Khalil's immigration case "has been sped through courts controlled by the executive branch." That phrasing carries editorial freight, but the underlying procedural reality is hard to dispute. The government chose the forum most favorable to its position and argued against allowing a federal judge to review the constitutional questions.
The Supreme Court will now decide whether that arrangement passes muster. The justices have shown a willingness to push back on executive overreach in immigration matters, as seen in the birthright citizenship arguments heard earlier this term.
Khalil's lawyers plan to petition for an immediate stay to block his removal while the Supreme Court considers the case. The timeline for that process remains unclear. If the justices decline to intervene, the administration could move quickly to deport him.
The 6-5 split on the Third Circuit suggests the legal questions are genuinely close. Five federal appellate judges believed the case warranted full court review. The Supreme Court often takes cases where circuit courts are closely divided or where fundamental constitutional questions are at stake. Both conditions appear to be met here.
The Trump administration has made enforcement against antisemitism a signature priority, and its willingness to use immigration tools against campus activists has drawn both praise and criticism from the right. Some conservatives have cheered the crackdown as overdue accountability. Others have warned that the legal theories the government is advancing could be turned against conservative speech under a future administration.
That tension, between the desire to hold campus radicals accountable and the need to preserve constitutional limits on government power, sits at the heart of several pending Supreme Court disputes involving the administration.
The government that can deport a legal resident for his protest signs today can deport one for his church attendance tomorrow. The Constitution is either a limit on power or it isn't.
