Appeals court vacates orders that freed activist Mahmoud Khalil, raising re‑detention risk

A three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on Jan. 15 reversed and vacated a series of district court orders that had led to the release of Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention, directing the District of New Jersey to dismiss his habeas petition for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction. The 2‑1 decision nullified orders entered April 29, May 28, June 11, June 20, and July 17, 2025, and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss.

The panel’s majority held that the Immigration and Nationality Act provides the exclusive statutory scheme for adjudicating Khalil’s removal claims and that he retains a meaningful forum to challenge those claims through the immigration courts and a subsequent petition for review. The opinion said the holdings “vindicate essential principles of habeas and immigration law.” The ruling did not address the merits of Khalil’s underlying claims about deportability.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and a former Columbia University graduate student active in pro‑Palestinian organizing, was arrested by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in March 2025 at his Columbia housing complex. He spent roughly three months in a Louisiana detention center and missed the birth of his son while detained. On June 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael A. Farbiarz granted temporary release on bail after finding that Khalil posed neither a danger nor a flight risk and that extraordinary circumstances justified release while habeas proceedings continued.

The Third Circuit ruling returns the question of custody and the path to judicial review to the immigration‑court process. An immigration judge, while district court proceedings were ongoing, found Khalil removable, concluding he could be deported to Algeria or Syria; Khalil has challenged that determination in the immigration system. The appeals panel emphasized that the statutory removal process, culminating in a petition for review to a federal circuit, is the proper route for such claims.

Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin hailed the decision as a “vindication of the rule of law,” adding that DHS would follow the ruling and “will work to enforce his lawful removal order.” The ruling could lead to Khalil’s re‑arrest by ICE, although civil liberties groups cautioned that the government cannot re‑detain him while the appellate order is not yet in effect and noted he retains options for further review, including en banc consideration by the full Third Circuit or a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Beyond the immediate legal questions, the case has broader public health and social equity implications. Prolonged detention separated Khalil from his newborn and family, a disruption that public health experts say can have lasting mental health and developmental consequences for parents and children. Advocates argue that politically charged enforcement against activists deepens mistrust of institutions among marginalized communities and exacerbates disparities in access to counsel and medical care inside detention facilities.

Policy debates exposed by the ruling reach beyond one case. Courts will continue to wade between habeas jurisdiction and Congress’s migration of immigration adjudication into a specialized administrative system, a tension that shapes how detainees can secure timely judicial review and access care and family reunification. Key unanswered items in the case include whether ICE will move immediately to re‑detain Khalil, the government’s next steps, and whether Khalil will seek en banc or Supreme Court review.