Court gives Mahmoud Khalil more time to fight Trump administration’s efforts to deport him

A federal appeals court is giving former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil more time to fight the Trump administration’s efforts to deport him.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident of the U.S., was detained by immigration authorities last year because of his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia in the spring of 2024.

The U.S. government argued at the time that Khalil’s presence in the U.S. was harmful to the country’s foreign policy interests.

Khalil spent months in detention before a federal judge in New Jersey freed him, saying that the government had acted unconstitutionally.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals then heard the case. It ruled that the judge in New Jersey didn’t have the authority to intervene in Khalil’s case, and said the case needed to proceed first through the immigration courts.

The appeals court on Tuesday, however, said it would put its ruling on hold while Khalil appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Brett Max Kaufman, senior counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing Khalil, said they’re grateful for the decision.

“We look forward to asking the Supreme Court to make clear that the government cannot use the threat of detention and deportation to silence dissent,” he said in a statement.

An appeal to the high court is expected in the coming months, possibly in late summer.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment on the decision.

As the court directed, Khalil’s lawyers have also argued his case in the immigration courts — so far unsuccessfully. He now has a separate appeal of those proceedings pending before a different federal appeals court, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Louisiana.

Tuesday’s stay by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals provides Khalil with an extra layer of insulation against his possible re-arrest and deportation while his other appeals are still pending.

The court did not provide a reason for the decision, but said, “If no timely petition is filed,” parties need to let the court know in writing.