2–1 Appellate Ruling Says New Jersey Federal Judge Lacked Jurisdiction Under Immigration Law; Activist’s Attorneys Expected To Seek Further Review

Thursday, January 15, 2025, 1:15 P.M. ET. 4 Minute Read, By Art Fletcher, Executive Editor, & Jennifer Hodges, Political Editor: Englebrook Independent News,

PHILADELPHIA, PA.- A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled Thursday that a federal district judge in New Jersey lacked legal authority to order the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate, from federal immigration custody, a decision that significantly increases the likelihood Khalil could be taken back into detention as his immigration case continues.

     The ruling, issued 2–1 by a three-judge panel sitting in Philadelphia, held that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) strictly channels challenges to ongoing removal proceedings through the immigration-court system and then to federal appellate courts only after a final removal order has been issued, not through district court habeas actions while immigration proceedings are still pending.

Court: District Judge Had No Authority;

     In the majority opinion, U.S. Circuit Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas ruled that the U.S. District Court in New Jersey improperly intervened when it ordered Khalil’s release.

     The judges found that Congress explicitly stripped district courts of jurisdiction to interfere in pending deportation proceedings, requiring all challenges, even constitutional ones, to proceed through immigration court, followed by review at the appellate level only after the case is finalized.

     The court emphasized that allowing district judges to intervene mid-process would undermine the statutory framework Congress designed to keep immigration cases consolidated within one judicial track.

     Importantly, the panel did not rule on the merits of Khalil’s claims, including allegations that his detention and attempted deportation violate the First Amendment and amount to political retaliation. The court limited its decision to whether the district court had the legal power to release him at all.

Sharp Dissent Warns Of Constitutional Harm;

     In a forceful dissent, U.S. Circuit Judge Arianna Freeman warned that the ruling effectively deprives Khalil of meaningful judicial protection while he remains vulnerable to detention.

     Freeman wrote that Khalil raised claims involving “fundamental constitutional rights” and alleged irreparable injury, and she argued Congress never intended to bar courts from stepping in when a person is subjected to potentially unconstitutional detention.

     She warned that forcing Khalil to wait until a final deportation order could render his constitutional claims meaningless, especially if he is re-detained or removed before full judicial review can occur. 

Re-Detention Now Legally Permitted;

     The Third Circuit’s ruling vacates the legal foundation of the New Jersey judge’s release order, clearing the way for the Department of Homeland Security to re-arrest and detain Khalil while his immigration case continues.

     However, the ruling does not take immediate effect. Khalil’s attorneys retain the right to seek:

• Emergency stays
• Rehearing by the full Third Circuit (en banc review)
• U.S. Supreme Court intervention

     Until those avenues are exhausted or denied, federal authorities may be legally restrained from acting.

     The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately indicate whether it intends to move quickly to re-detain Khalil.

Background Of The Case;

     Khalil was arrested by federal immigration authorities on March 8, 2025, becoming one of the first high-profile cases in a broader federal effort targeting foreign nationals involved in pro-Palestinian activism on U.S. campuses.

His case has followed two parallel tracks:

Federal Court Track

     In June 2025, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered Khalil’s release from detention, later granting him bail after finding that he posed no flight risk and no danger to the public, and that extraordinary circumstances justified his release while his habeas challenge proceeded.

Immigration Court Track

     Separately, an immigration judge ruled Khalil was removable from the United States, with potential deportation to Algeria or Syria. That decision is now being challenged through immigration appeals.

     Thursday’s ruling makes clear that immigration courts, not district courts, control the timeline of Khalil’s case.

What Happens Next;

     Khalil’s legal team is expected to pursue immediate appellate remedies, including:

• Petitioning the Third Circuit for full-court review
• Seeking emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court
• Continuing to litigate his case through immigration appeals

     Until a final removal order is issued, Khalil remains in legal limbo, technically free for now, but with re-detention hanging over him as courts determine how far constitutional protections extend in immigration custody.

Editor’s Note:

This report is based on same-day court rulings and verified coverage of the Third Circuit’s January 15, 2026, decision, including the identities of the judges, the 2–1 vote, the statutory basis under the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the ruling’s effect on Mahmoud Khalil’s custody status. The court ruled strictly on jurisdiction and did not address the underlying First Amendment or due-process claims. Verified by Art Fletcher and Jennifer Hodges for Englebrook Independent News.