Mahmoud Khalil petitions Supreme Court to block deportation

Anti-Israel Columbia protest leader Mahmoud Khalil takes deportation fight to the Supreme Court.

By David Rosenberg, World Israel News

Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent organizer of anti-Israel protests at Columbia University, petitioned the US Supreme Court on Monday to overturn a federal appeals court ruling that could allow the Trump administration to detain and deport him, setting up a potentially consequential legal battle over the government’s authority to hold foreign nationals accused of engaging in activities contrary to US interests.

Khalil, an Algerian citizen and US green-card holder, is challenging a January decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals that found federal district courts lacked jurisdiction to order his release from immigration detention while deportation proceedings were underway.

His lawyers argue that the ruling would allow immigration authorities to detain individuals for extended periods without immediate judicial review, even when they allege that their detention violates constitutional protections.

“If the Trump administration can punish someone for their pro-Palestine speech, this or any future administration can punish anyone for any speech,” Khalil told reporters Monday.

Khalil was arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in March 2025 following his involvement in anti-Israel demonstrations at Columbia University, where protesters established encampments and demanded that the university sever financial ties with Israel.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked a rarely used provision of federal immigration law to seek Khalil’s removal, arguing that his participation in antisemitic protests and disruptive activities had contributed to a hostile environment for Jewish students and undermined US foreign policy interests.

Khalil, who was born in Syria, spent 104 days in federal immigration detention in Louisiana before US District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered his release in June 2025.

The judge determined that the government’s justification for detaining Khalil was likely unconstitutional.

However, a divided three-judge panel of the Third Circuit subsequently overturned the ruling on jurisdictional grounds, holding that Khalil must pursue his claims through the immigration review process rather than through a district court.

The full appeals court later declined to reconsider that decision.

The Department of Homeland Security rejected Khalil’s allegations and defended the administration’s actions.

“The Trump Administration acted well within its statutory and constitutional authority with respect to Khalil,” a department spokesperson said.

The department also accused Khalil of advocating violence, glorifying terrorists, harassing Jews and damaging property, and urged him to voluntarily leave the United States using the government’s CBP Home application.

Khalil’s legal troubles extend beyond the dispute over his detention. An immigration judge previously ordered him deported to Algeria or Syria, and the Board of Immigration Appeals rejected his challenge to that order in April. He is separately contesting the deportation order in federal court.

For now, Khalil remains free under a court order preventing his renewed detention while his Supreme Court appeal proceeds.

The case has drawn additional attention because federal appeals courts have reached conflicting conclusions about the authority of district judges to intervene in immigration detention cases.

In a separate case involving Georgetown University scholar Badar Khan Suri, another foreign national detained over pro-Palestinian activism, the Fourth Circuit upheld a federal judge’s authority to order his release.

The Trump administration has also asked the Supreme Court to review that ruling.

The conflicting decisions could increase the likelihood that the justices agree to address the broader jurisdictional dispute.

Khalil’s attorneys argue that requiring detainees to exhaust immigration proceedings before obtaining federal judicial review would allow the government to hold people for months or years while their cases move through the administrative system.

The administration maintains that Congress established a specific process for contesting immigration decisions and that district courts cannot bypass those statutory restrictions.

The Supreme Court has not announced whether it will hear the case. If the justices grant review, arguments could take place next year, with a decision potentially establishing new limits on how and when immigrants can challenge federal detention orders.