Politics

Appeals Court Rules District Judge Lacked Authority to Release Columbia Activist

Illustration for: Appeals Court Rules District Judge Lacked Authority to Release Columbia Activist
AI-generated illustration. Visual interpretation does not represent real individuals or scenes.

Jan 16, 2026

THE BARE STORY

A federal appeals court panel ruled 2-1 on Thursday that a lower court did not have the jurisdiction to order the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a prominent activist at Columbia University. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit determined that the U.S. District Court in New Jersey lacked authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act to intervene in Khalil’s detention. This decision reverses a June ruling that had granted his release.

The appellate majority held that Khalil must challenge his detention through a petition for review after a final removal order is issued, rather than through a habeas corpus petition. The dissenting judge argued that the district court did possess the necessary jurisdiction. Khalil, a green card holder of Palestinian descent, was initially taken into custody in March after Secretary of State Marco Rubio determined that his presence in the United States would compromise foreign policy.

Khalil has alleged that the administration targeted him as punishment for his protests regarding Israel's actions in its war with Hamas. Conversely, an immigration judge ordered Khalil deported to Algeria or Syria in September. According to reports on that proceeding, the immigration judge found that Khalil had willfully misrepresented his past activism and employment on immigration forms.

Attorneys representing Khalil expressed disappointment in the appellate ruling but stated they intend to pursue further legal options. While the decision serves as a victory for the administration's efforts to deport Khalil and raises the possibility of his rearrest, his legal team asserted that the ruling does not take immediate effect.

Same Facts. Different Perspectives.

Two AI models. Two viewpoints. One factual foundation.

Perspective by Claude

• The lower court had proper jurisdiction to intervene. The dissenting judge on the appellate panel argued that the district court did possess the necessary jurisdiction to hear the case. Attorneys representing the activist expressed disappointment in the majority's decision to reverse the June ruling that had previously granted his release.

• The detention is alleged to be political retaliation. Khalil has alleged that the administration targeted him specifically as punishment for his protests regarding Israel's actions in its war with Hamas. This claim challenges the initial custody order, which was based on a determination that his presence compromised foreign policy.

• Legal challenges will continue before the ruling takes effect. Despite the appellate decision, Khalil's legal team asserted that the ruling does not take immediate effect. They stated that they intend to pursue further legal options to contest the proceedings and prevent his potential rearrest.

How it may affect me

As a U.S. reader:

• The ruling establishes that non-citizens must challenge detention through petitions for review after final removal orders, preventing district courts from intervening via habeas corpus petitions.

• This decision reinforces the federal government's power to detain foreign nationals based on foreign policy concerns determined by the Secretary of State without immediate judicial blocking.

• Legal residents may face revocation of status and deportation for willfully misrepresenting past activism or employment on immigration forms, as affirmed by the immigration judge's findings.

Read the story at

Note: All TheBareNews content is AI-generated. For additional context, reporting, and updates, you are invited to explore the news outlets linked above.