Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student and green card holder, has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review his case after a federal appeals court ruled he could not challenge his detention in court until his immigration proceedings concluded. Khalil, who was detained by federal agents in March 2025 and held for over 100 days in ICE custody, alleges the Trump administration targeted him for his pro-Palestinian activism.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a divided ruling earlier this year that barred Khalil from litigating his claims—including alleged violations of his First Amendment rights—until after his immigration case was resolved. Khalil’s lawyers argue the decision conflicts with constitutional protections for free speech and habeas corpus rights. The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to take the case could set a precedent for when individuals may challenge government detention in federal court while immigration proceedings are pending.
Khalil was released from custody in July 2025 pending the outcome of his Supreme Court petition. His legal team contends that the administration’s actions were politically motivated, citing a State Department determination signed by then-Secretary Marco Rubio that Khalil’s pro-Palestinian activities “compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Khalil has not been charged with any crime.
Legal and Policy Context
The case centers on the writ of habeas corpus, which allows individuals to challenge unlawful detention. Khalil’s appeal argues that immigration proceedings do not preclude federal court review of constitutional claims. A White House spokeswoman defended the administration’s actions, stating that Khalil “obtained his visa by willfully and intentionally failing to accurately report information relevant to his background.” She added that those who “lie to the government to obtain entry into the United States will face justice.”
Khalil, who is married to an American citizen, has framed the case as a broader fight for free speech. In a remote press conference, he stated, “This fight is not only about whether I get to stay in this country. It’s about whether anyone in this country can speak out for Palestinians without being punished for it.” His legal team did not respond to requests for further comment on the Supreme Court filing.
Immigration and Foreign Policy Implications
The case intersects with broader debates over immigration enforcement and political activism. Khalil’s detention followed his participation in pro-Palestinian protests on Columbia’s campus amid the Israel-Hamas war. The administration’s decision to seek his deportation under foreign policy grounds—without criminal charges—has raised questions about the use of immigration law to address political speech.
A federal appeals court previously ruled that Khalil could not sue until his immigration case was finalized, citing the need to avoid conflicting rulings between immigration and federal courts. Khalil’s lawyers argue this interpretation undermines judicial oversight of executive detention. The Supreme Court’s potential intervention could clarify the balance between immigration enforcement and constitutional protections.