A federal appeals court has overturned a lower court ruling that would have freed detained pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, marking a significant legal win for the Trump administration as it reasserts control over immigration policy in its new term.
Appeals Court Rejects District Judge’s Authority
In a decision issued Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that the district court lacked the legal authority to order Khalil’s release from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody. The appellate panel pointed to federal immigration statutes that restrict judicial oversight in deportation-related cases.
The dispute dates back to Khalil’s detention by ICE amid ongoing deportation proceedings. A district judge had ordered Khalil released, and the Biden administration initially declined to challenge that ruling. However, following the 2024 election and subsequent shift in executive leadership, the Trump administration filed an appeal, arguing the judge intruded into matters reserved for immigration enforcement officials.
Legal Basis Centered on Jurisdiction Limits
In its written opinion, the appeals court cited statutory language limiting district court jurisdiction over challenges to deportation decisions. According to the panel, the provision at issue-referenced as part of the federal immigration code-bars district courts from intervening in cases where the government is executing or preparing removal actions.
Because the lower court’s decision exceeded those jurisdictional boundaries, the appeals court vacated the release order and instructed the district court to dismiss the case entirely.
Implications for Khalil and Immigration Policy
The outcome leaves Khalil in ICE detention as his deportation case continues. Advocacy groups have followed the case closely, arguing that Khalil’s removal would punish constitutionally protected political speech. Supporters say the ruling highlights the legal barriers facing activists who become entangled in immigration enforcement.
For the Trump administration, the decision strengthens its efforts to restrict judicial interference in immigration actions-a key pillar of its policy agenda since returning to office. Legal analysts note that similar disputes are likely as federal authorities move aggressively to enforce removal orders amid heightened political scrutiny.
Broader Context
The case underscores recurring legal clashes over the scope of judicial authority in immigration matters. While civil liberties organizations argue for broader court oversight, conservative policymakers contend that Congress clearly delegated removal decisions to the executive branch.
With immigration policy once again at the forefront of federal politics, experts anticipate more courtroom battles in the months ahead as advocacy groups, government agencies, and the courts continue to define the limits of executive power.
“Don’t miss how ‘ACLU Launches Federal Complaint Challenging Immigration Tactics in Minnesota Amid Claims of Racial Profiling’ – read the full blog for the full story!”
