On January 15, 2026, a three‑judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a 2–1 decision that vacated a district court judgment ordering the release of Mahmoud Khalil from immigration detention and directed dismissal of his federal lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. Reuters reported that the ruling opens the door to Khalil being re‑arrested, and the court’s published opinion frames the dispute as raising “important jurisdictional questions about habeas corpus and immigration.”
The core of the decision is procedural, but its consequences are tangible. The panel majority held that, under the Immigration and Nationality Act’s review scheme, the district court that handled Khalil’s case was not the proper forum for his claims at this stage; instead, his challenges should be addressed through immigration proceedings and then through a petition for review of a final removal order. The majority emphasized that the statutory “scheme” provides a forum later, while the dissent argued that the decision risks foreclosing meaningful judicial review of constitutional claims in the period when detention is occurring.
This matters for political‑detention analysis because access to court review is one of the most basic safeguards against arbitrary confinement. Both Reuters and the Associated Press reported that the ruling does not itself order immediate re‑detention, and that Khalil’s lawyers said they would appeal; Reuters reported that the decision “does not take immediate effect,” which, in practical terms, delays any renewed detention while additional appellate steps are pursued.
Khalil’s case has been at the center of a broader controversy over immigration enforcement and campus activism. Reuters described him as a Columbia University graduate and pro‑Palestinian activist, and reported he was arrested by immigration agents on March 8, 2025, in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan. Reuters further reported that he was released from a Louisiana detention center in June 2025 after U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ordered the Department of Homeland Security to release him, and that the government appealed that release order.
According to Reuters, an immigration judge in September ordered Khalil removed to Algeria or Syria based on claims that he omitted information from his green‑card application—an allegation his lawyers have said they will appeal. The Associated Press likewise reported that federal officials have accused him of leading activities “aligned to Hamas” without presenting evidence publicly, and of failing to disclose information on his green‑card application, while not accusing him of criminal conduct. These are allegations, and their legal and factual sufficiency is part of the ongoing litigation and immigration process.
The Third Circuit opinion itself describes the appeal as involving “three orders” entered by the district court and sets the decision within the INA’s channeling rules. While those jurisdictional rules are technical, the human‑rights question is straightforward: when a person alleges detention is being used to punish speech or political activity, what process exists to obtain timely, meaningful review while the detention is ongoing? In her dissent, Judge Arianna Freeman warned against foreclosing effective review of claims that detention and potential re‑detention violate free‑speech rights.
The government, for its part, framed the decision as a validation of its position. Reuters reported that DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said the ruling was a “vindication of the rule of law” and urged Khalil to “self‑deport.” Such public messaging is not evidence about the merits of constitutional claims, but it is relevant to understanding the state’s posture toward a high‑profile activist whose detention has been publicly defended in political terms.
What comes next is procedural and public. Khalil’s lawyers can seek rehearing or pursue Supreme Court review, and his immigration case continues through the administrative system and any subsequent federal review authorized by statute. In the meantime, the Third Circuit’s ruling is likely to be cited in other cases where detainees allege that immigration detention is being used as a tool of political retaliation, because it addresses when and how habeas review is available in the face of the INA’s channeling provisions.