Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil to appeal to US Supreme Court to avoid re-arrest
Source: Reuters
Pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil to appeal to US Supreme Court to avoid re-arrest
By Nate Raymond
May 22, 2026 1:51 PM EDT Updated 4 mins ago
Summary
* Appeals court on 6-5 vote declines to revisit ruling on Khalil's detention
* Khalil's lawyers plan Supreme Court appeal, calling ruling 'dangerous'
* Appeals court was divided along ideological lines
May 22 (Reuters) - Lawyers for Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil vowed on Friday to take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court, after a divided federal appeals court declined to reconsider a ruling that opened the door to President Donald Trump's administration re-arresting and deporting the pro-Palestinian activist.
The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals split 6-5, opens new tab along ideological lines to reject Khalil's request to revisit a ruling a 2-1 panel of the Philadelphia-based court delivered in January that had concluded a lower-court judge had no jurisdiction to order his release from immigration detention last year.
He was among the most prominent of a number of foreign students detained last year by immigration authorities under the Trump administration after engaging in pro-Palestinian activism on their college campuses. ... If the 3rd Circuit's ruling is allowed to take effect, Khalil could face the prospect of being arrested again and deported, after the Board of Immigration Appeals in April rejected his appeal of an immigration judge's order that he be removed to Algeria or Syria.
Baher Azmy, a lawyer for Khalil at the Center for Constitutional Rights, in a statement promised to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Khalil's case and overturn the 3rd Circuit's "dangerous" decision.
{snip}
Read more: https://www.reuters.com/world/court-wont-revisit-ruling-opening-door-pro-palestinian-activist-mahmoud-khalils-2026-05-22/
Reposted by Chris Geidner
https://bsky.app/profile/chrisgeidner.bsky.social
******
Roger Parloff
@rparloff.bsky.social
So the 3d Circuit has, indeed, DENIED REHEARING EN BANC of Mahmoud Khalil's appeal. Five of 11 would have voted to rehear. A very big loss for Khalil and a many other noncitizen habeas petitioners, because the panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Court Order Filed – #155 in Mahmoud Khalil v. President United States of America (3rd Cir., 25-2162) – CourtListener.com
ORDER (HARDIMAN, KRAUSE, RESTREPO, BIBAS, PORTER, MATEY, PHIPPS, FREEMAN, MONTGOMERY-REEVES, CHUNG and MASCOTT, Circuit Judges) The petition for rehearing filed by Appellee having been submitted to th...
storage.courtlistener.com
Roger Parloff
@rparloff.bsky.social
· 7h
Mahmoud Khalil's motion to recuse Judge Bove from rehearing en banc of his appeal has been DENIED as MOOT in an order signed by Bove. (Bove at DOJ when Khalil was targeted.)
Maybe that means Khalil's motion for rehearing has also been denied, but there's no indication of that in the docket yet.
2:05 PM · May 22, 2026
******
So the 3d Circuit has, indeed, DENIED REHEARING EN BANC of Mahmoud Khalil's appeal. Five of 11 would have voted to rehear. A very big loss for Khalil and a many other noncitizen habeas petitioners, because the panel dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T18:05:31.696Z
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
*******
Roger Parloff
@rparloff.bsky.social
Mahmoud Khalil's motion to recuse Judge Bove from rehearing en banc of his appeal has been DENIED as MOOT in an order signed by Bove. (Bove at DOJ when Khalil was targeted.)
Maybe that means Khalil's motion for rehearing has also been denied, but there's no indication of that in the docket yet.
9:25 AM · May 22, 2026
******
Mahmoud Khalil's motion to recuse Judge Bove from rehearing en banc of his appeal has been DENIED as MOOT in an order signed by Bove. (Bove at DOJ when Khalil was targeted.)
— Roger Parloff (@rparloff.bsky.social) 2026-05-22T13:25:12.663Z
Maybe that means Khalil's motion for rehearing has also been denied, but there's no indication of that in the docket yet.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Unless they were pulling for tRUMP. 
