Supreme Court asked to block deportation of Columbia activist Khalil

Mahmoud Khalil’s fight over deportation is now moving toward the Supreme Court, turning his case into a test of how far the Trump administration can go in using immigration law and foreign-policy claims against a lawful permanent resident tied to campus protest activity.

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals rejected rehearing on May 22 in a 6-5 split, leaving in place a legal path that could allow the government to press ahead with removal efforts. Judges in dissent said the ruling threatened the civil liberties of Khalil and other noncitizens in similar situations, underscoring how closely the case now tracks the boundary between executive power and protected speech.

Khalil, a Columbia University graduate from Algeria and a lawful permanent resident, was arrested by federal immigration agents on March 8, 2025, at his Columbia University-owned apartment in New York City. He was later transferred to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody in Louisiana. A federal judge ordered his release on bail on June 20, 2025, after months of detention that turned his case into a national flashpoint in the administration’s campaign against pro-Palestinian activism on campuses.

The case has also carried a personal cost. Khalil’s wife, Noor Abdalla, gave birth to the couple’s son in April 2025 while Khalil remained detained and had been denied temporary release to attend the birth.

At the center of the legal fight is the government’s reliance on a little-used Immigration and Nationality Act foreign-policy provision and on Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assessment that Khalil’s continued presence in the United States could cause serious adverse foreign-policy consequences. Khalil’s lawyers have argued that theory stretches immigration authority into punishment for political activity, and they say they will seek U.S. Supreme Court review along with an immediate stay to prevent re-arrest or deportation while the appeal is pending.

The legal road to that point was narrowed on Jan. 15, 2026, when a three-judge Third Circuit panel held that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction while immigration proceedings were still ongoing. The full court’s refusal to rehear the case on May 22 leaves that ruling in place for now, and raises the prospect that the nation’s highest court will be asked to decide how much room the executive branch has to target a noncitizen whose profile is tied to protest, speech and university activism.