On October 21, 2025, the marble halls of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia echoed with arguments that reverberate far beyond one man’s fate. Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and recent Columbia University graduate, found himself at the center of a fierce legal and political battle—one that’s come to symbolize the collision of civil liberties, executive power, and the rights of immigrants in the United States.
Khalil’s story begins in March 2025, when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested him in New York City. The stated reason? His student visa had allegedly been revoked. Khalil protested, telling officers he was a green card holder, not a student visa holder. Nonetheless, he was detained, separated from his pregnant wife, and flown to a remote detention facility in Jena, Louisiana, where he spent 104 days—an ordeal he later described as punishment for his activism. According to ABC News, Khalil was a vocal organizer of pro-Palestinian protests on the Columbia campus, and his attorneys contend that his arrest was a politically motivated act of retaliation.
After his detention, Khalil’s legal team sprang into action, filing a habeas corpus petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. They argued that since he was arrested in New York, that was the proper venue for his challenge. The government, however, countered that the case should be heard in Louisiana, where Khalil was ultimately detained. The petition was transferred to the District of New Jersey after it was confirmed Khalil had been held there before Louisiana, but the government continued to challenge the court’s jurisdiction, setting the stage for the high-profile appeal heard in Philadelphia this week.
At the heart of the government’s case is a clause in the Immigration and Nationality Act known as the “foreign policy ground.” This provision allows the secretary of state—in this case, Marco Rubio—to unilaterally declare that a noncitizen’s speech poses a threat to U.S. foreign policy, providing grounds for detention and removal. The Trump administration cited this authority to justify Khalil’s arrest and attempted deportation, arguing that his activism and speech on Palestine endangered U.S. interests.
But in June 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz cast serious doubt on that rationale. Calling the move “likely unconstitutional,” Judge Farbiarz granted Khalil bail and barred the government from using the foreign policy justification to detain or remove him. The administration appealed to the Third Circuit, insisting that the New Jersey court lacked legal authority because Khalil was no longer in the state when the petition was filed.
During Tuesday’s oral arguments, the government pressed its jurisdictional claim. Deputy U.S. Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign argued, “The District of New Jersey did not validly acquire jurisdiction,” insisting the petition should have been heard in Louisiana. But the judges weren’t buying it. As Judge Arianna Freeman pointed out, “The district court there found that counsel for the government persistently and repeatedly misrepresented where Mr. Khalil was when he was in New Jersey and told his attorneys and his family that he was in New York. He was given misinformation and his attorneys followed that information to file in New York.”
The skepticism wasn’t limited to jurisdiction. The judges also questioned the government’s apparent ability to “move the goalposts” by transferring detainees and then challenging venue, potentially creating what one judge called a “black hole of no jurisdiction.” As reported by ABC News, the court worried that if their rule was “wait until the system is updated Monday morning,” the executive branch might “spirit the person out of the country over the weekend.”
For Khalil and his supporters, the stakes reach far beyond his personal liberty. Outside the courthouse, Khalil addressed a crowd of supporters and media, expressing optimism and defiance. “The government lawyers were defending the indefensible … being literally detained for over 100 days for literally protesting a genocide. They don’t have anything other than that. That’s why they’re choosing a kangaroo court, which is the immigration court, because they know they can control that process,” Khalil said, as quoted by ABC News. He added, “The Trump administration is still trying to re-detain me. They’re trying to stop the federal court from looking at my case because they know they don’t have a case against me. So we’ll keep fighting the legal fight until the end.”
Khalil’s attorneys, as reported by WHYY News, describe his arrest as part of a broader pattern of retaliatory prosecution. They argue that the administration’s use of the foreign policy clause is a dangerous attempt to rewrite the rules of free expression, starting with immigrants. Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union, told the court, “People in our government didn’t like the protected pro-Palestine speech of a lawful permanent resident. So they detained him, sent him far away to Louisiana and began efforts to remove him from the country—while proudly warning others that they might be next.”
The chilling effect on campus activism and immigrant rights is not hypothetical. A related case in Boston revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had flagged student activists for surveillance based on Palestine-related speech. Bobby Hodgson of the New York Civil Liberties Union argued that the facts of Khalil’s case demonstrate it does not fall within the secretary of state’s foreign policy powers, which were not meant to suppress dissenting viewpoints. “I think that is the quintessential case where the right is the strongest and the protections are the strongest, and also where the government has the lowest interest in imposing its power in a viewpoint discriminatory way,” Hodgson said.
Even after the injunction blocking Khalil’s removal on foreign policy grounds, the government introduced new allegations, claiming he misrepresented facts in his green card application. An immigration judge ruled against Khalil on these new grounds, but his legal team appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals. Baher Azmy, legal director at the Center for Constitutional Rights, dismissed the charges as “baseless and obviously as part and parcel of the broader project of retaliation.” He added, “It all stems from the same sort of rotten root, their desire to punish him for speaking out on behalf of Palestinian human rights.”
The Trump administration, for its part, has maintained that its actions are about national security, not political retaliation. “The Trump Administration is using every tool available to get terrorist-supporting aliens out of our country,” a State Department official told ABC News. “A visa is a privilege, not a right. We abide by all applicable laws to ensure the United States does not harbor aliens who pose a threat to our national security.”
Khalil’s case has become a rallying point for advocates concerned with immigrant rights, campus free speech, and unchecked executive power. Ramzi Kassem, founder of Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility, warned, “It’s a template that can be mobilized against any issue set that this administration disagrees with, whether it’s reproductive rights, LGBTQ rights or racial justice, this model could be applied to those issues.”
For Khalil, the battle is not just about his own future but about the rights of all who call America home. “This case is about every single person in this country, whether they’re citizens or not,” he told supporters outside the courthouse. “This case is about their freedom of speech and their ability to dissent and their ability to speak up, especially about Palestine—about the genocide that’s happening.”
As the legal fight continues, the outcome will have profound implications for the boundaries of free speech, the reach of executive power, and the future of dissent in America.
