Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent resident of the United States and recent Columbia University graduate, faces continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) following a ruling from a federal appeals court. Khalil is notorious for his pro-Palestinian activism on campus. He was the leader of the protests that called for a ceasefire as well as an end to U.S. backing for Israel. Like many cases today, his has received a tremendous amount of media attention. Civil liberties organizations have been particularly outspoken, denouncing Liss’ detention as just one instance of a broader effort to stifle pro-Palestinian speech throughout the Trump administration.
The Philadelphia-based Third Circuit Court of Appeals gave its decision 2-1. Artur Khalil’s detention. This decision overturned a prior order by a lower court mandating the release of Khalil from detention. As a result, the court threw out Khalil’s lawsuit. This ruling was due to federal immigration law, which strips lower courts’ jurisdiction to hear claims like these. In their opinion, circuit judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas noted that Khalil has a rare opportunity to make his claims to the court. In doing so, he can only request that a final order of removal be reviewed.
Khalil’s detention has sparked widespread criticism, with civil liberties advocates arguing that the Trump administration’s actions are an infringement on free speech rights. Thousands have rallied around Khalil already, and they’re right to do so, because his activism should not lead to any sort of punishment from immigration enforcement. His legal team filed a lawsuit challenging his detention, highlighting concerns over the legality of his treatment by the government.
The judges pointed out to Khalil that this draw, of all cases, should be the most aggravating. They insisted Congress has established a legal process and he needs to seek relief through the proper channels. Judge Hardiman reiterated that the plan gives petitioners only one opportunity to make their argument. He emphasized that this intentional framework stops them from receiving no opportunities at all or too many opportunities for relief in immigration court. He concluded, “This unfortunately means that some petitioners must wait … Khalil, for instance, will now need to wait before obtaining relief from the complained-of unlawful government action.”
The ruling marks a significant win for the Trump administration in its continuing campaign to deport Khalil. This decision raises critical questions regarding the impact of immigration enforcement on political speech. It especially reminds us of the power of activism rooted in a global vision.
As Mahmoud Khalil continues to operate amidst a confusing, ever-shifting legal environment. His case has turned into a bellwether issue in the fight for civil liberties and immigrant rights, particularly as applied to political dissent. His case illustrates the challenges that people are subjected to when they engage in politically unpalatable speech. They face a critical eye from the government during this hostile political climate.