The Third Circuit ruled 2-1 that Mahmoud Khalil must exhaust immigration court remedies before accessing federal court, setting circuit precedent on habeas access.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled 2-1 that Mahmoud Khalil, the Palestinian activist detained by federal immigration authorities, must challenge his deportation through the immigration court system rather than federal district court [1]. The January 15, 2026, decision reversed a lower court ruling that had found Khalil's detention and removal proceedings likely unconstitutional, holding that the Immigration and Nationality Act strips federal district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over his claims before immigration proceedings conclude [1].
Khalil was arrested by Department of Homeland Security agents and placed in removal proceedings, a move his attorneys at the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU argued was retaliation for his pro-Palestinian speech and organizing activity on campus [2]. A federal district court had sided with Khalil, finding his detention raised serious First Amendment concerns and warranted federal judicial intervention. The Third Circuit majority, written by Judges Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, rejected that jurisdictional footing outright, concluding that Congress has directed noncitizens to exhaust immigration court remedies before seeking federal habeas relief [1]. Judge Arianna Freeman dissented, cautioning that the ruling may leave Khalil without any meaningful avenue for judicial review [1].
The decision carries significant weight beyond this case. By establishing circuit-level precedent, the Third Circuit has effectively channeled similar high-profile deportation cases, including those where the government invokes national security or foreign policy rationales against political activists, through the immigration court system, which sits within the Department of Justice [2]. Federal habeas review, the traditional check on executive detention power, becomes available only after that administrative process concludes, if at all. Critics of the ruling argue the structure creates a procedural bottleneck that advantages the government in politically sensitive cases.
The legal battle did not stop at the Third Circuit. The Board of Immigration Appeals issued a final removal order against Khalil in April 2026, and his attorneys filed a petition for review with the Fifth Circuit [1]. That appeal now becomes the primary venue for resolving whether the government's stated grounds for removal, rooted in its authority to deport noncitizens whose presence it deems adverse to foreign policy interests, can survive constitutional scrutiny. The Fifth Circuit's disposition of Khalil's First Amendment and due process arguments will determine whether the circuit-level framework erected by this ruling forecloses or merely delays meaningful federal court review.