Particle.news
Download on the App Store

Appeals Court Refuses Full Rehearing in Mahmoud Khalil Case as Lawyers Move Toward Supreme Court

The 3rd Circuit's decision narrows where Khalil can raise constitutional claims and raises wider questions about judicial oversight of immigration enforcement.

Overview

  • A divided 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 22 declined 6-5 to grant a full-court rehearing, leaving in place a panel ruling that a federal district judge lacked jurisdiction to review Khalil's detention.
  • Because of that ruling, Khalil cannot pursue his constitutional claims in federal district court for now and must press them through the immigration appeals process after a final removal order.
  • Khalil's lawyers said they will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case and will seek an emergency stay to block his re-arrest or deportation while appeals continue.
  • The government relied on a rarely used statutory ground saying Khalil's speech could 'compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest' and also accused him of misstatements on his green-card application, though no criminal charges were filed.
  • Three appeals judges dissented and civil-rights groups warned the decision risks broad civil-liberty harms, while reporting and lawyers have flagged unusual fast-tracking and recusals at the Board of Immigration Appeals that they say deserve scrutiny.