Student’s Habeas Bid Denied by 3rd Circuit — Khalil’s Case Heads Toward a Hostile Bench

Mahmoud Khalil, a 30-year-old Columbia University graduate student and lawful permanent resident, remains entangled in litigation after his March arrest following pro-Palestine demonstrations. Federal authorities invoked a rarely used immigration provision, asserting Khalil’s conduct could have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences” for the United States. Khalil spent three months in detention — missing the birth of his first child — before being released in June.

Last week, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit dealt a significant setback: in a 2–1 decision the court dismissed his federal habeas corpus petition, concluding that the New Jersey district court lacked jurisdiction to hear his challenge and that claims tied to a final order of removal should proceed through the immigration-court system overseen by the Department of Justice.

The panel majority held that the jurisdiction-stripping provisions enacted in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) bar federal district courts from hearing certain habeas claims, forcing litigants to raise constitutional defenses first in immigration court, then before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), and only afterward in the appropriate federal circuit court.

That ruling leaves Khalil with limited immediate options: he can seek an en banc rehearing in the 3rd Circuit, and, if denied, pursue review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But the politics of the courts complicate those routes — the 3rd Circuit has recently gained a controversial new member, Emil Bove, and its overall composition has shifted in ways that may make timely relief less likely.

Why This Decision Matters

The case raises fundamental questions about access to federal habeas review when constitutional rights are alleged to be at immediate risk. Attorneys and scholars who support Khalil argue that habeas should be available without forcing petitioners to endure lengthy administrative exhaustion when the executive branch is alleged to have inflicted irreparable constitutional harm — for example, by detaining someone in retaliation for protected speech.

Opponents — including the Justice Department in this litigation — argue that IIRIRA requires an exhaustion-first approach, limiting district-court jurisdiction so that immigration courts and the BIA have primary responsibility for resolving removal proceedings and related claims.

How Khalil’s Case Reached the 3rd Circuit

Elora Mukherjee, a Columbia Law School professor and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic who filed an amicus brief in Khalil’s favor, summarized the procedural path. Khalil’s lawyers initially filed a federal habeas petition in the Southern District of New York after his arrest. Before the petition was formally filed, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) transferred Khalil to a detention facility in northern New Jersey, prompting transfer of the case to the District of New Jersey.

The government sought to have the case transferred to the Western District of Louisiana, where Khalil spent a substantial period in custody and where an immigration judge issued a removal order. The New Jersey court denied that motion, and the dispute over venue and jurisdiction ultimately reached the 3rd Circuit.

Shirin Ali: What do you make of the 3rd Circuit’s opinion?

Elora Mukherjee: The decision is wrong. The majority reads IIRIRA to remove federal courts’ ability to hear habeas claims in precisely the kinds of cases where people allege immediate constitutional injury. That interpretation forces petitioners to exhaust lengthy administrative processes while their rights remain infringed — sometimes for months or years. This undermines habeas protections designed to provide quick relief from unlawful detention.

Where Things Could Go From Here

Khalil can request an en banc rehearing in the 3rd Circuit, which would have all active judges reconsider the panel decision. If the en banc court declines or upholds the panel ruling, Khalil could petition the U.S. Supreme Court. A Supreme Court decision would have broad consequences for noncitizens seeking federal habeas review and for the balance between administrative immigration processes and constitutional safeguards.

Meanwhile, a parallel removal proceeding in Louisiana remains active before the Executive Office for Immigration Review. That administrative track is separate from — and may proceed concurrently with — any federal-court litigation. Mukherjee and other advocates note that recent personnel changes at the BIA and among immigration judges have narrowed protections for noncitizens and influenced outcomes in removal litigation.

Broader Implications

Beyond Khalil’s individual fate, this litigation highlights systemic issues: the scope of habeas review; the effect of IIRIRA’s jurisdictional language on constitutional claims; the consequences of administrative restructuring at the BIA and immigration courts; and the risk that noncitizens who assert constitutional rights may face expedited removal without timely access to independent federal review.

Whatever the next procedural step, Khalil’s case will likely continue to be watched by civil-rights advocates, immigration lawyers, and scholars concerned about the availability of rapid judicial relief when government action threatens fundamental liberties.