- The Second Circuit overturned the release order for activist Mohsen Mahdawi, citing a lack of district court jurisdiction.
- The ruling reinforces that specialized immigration courts must handle detention challenges before federal district court intervention.
- Mahdawi faces a final removal order to Jordan while his legal appeal remains pending in the First Circuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned a lower-court order requiring the release of Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi from immigration detention, sending his legal fight back toward the immigration court system. The July 21 ruling said the federal district court in Vermont lacked jurisdiction to order his release on bail.
The panel’s decision, in Mahdawi v. Trump, No. 25-1033, did not order his immediate re-arrest. He remains in the United States while an appeal to the First Circuit is pending, but he faces a final removal order to Jordan.
Civil rights groups say the detention violates the rights of a lawful permanent resident and targets political speech. They argue that his campus activism receives protection under the First Amendment and that the government is trying to silence dissent among college students.
Free toolOPT Timeline Calculator OnlineThe ruling gives the administration a procedural victory. A Department of Homeland Security spokesperson called it “A win for public safety and the rule of law.”
“The court's decision affirms that the executive branch has the authority to manage immigration enforcement and that specialized immigration courts, rather than district courts, are the proper venue for these proceedings.”
August 2026 Final Action Dates
India China ROW EB-1 Oct 15, 2022 Jul 01, 2023 ▲30d Current EB-2 Unavailable Sep 01, 2021 Current EB-3 Jan 01, 2014 Jan 01, 2022 ▲10d Sep 01, 2024 ▲31d F-1 Dec 15, 2018 ▲317d Dec 15, 2018 ▲317d Dec 15, 2018 ▲317d F-2A Jul 22, 2026 ▲567d Jul 22, 2026 ▲567d Jul 22, 2026 ▲567d
The spokesperson said the case belongs first in the specialized system overseen by the Department of Justice. The appellate panel similarly held that challenges to detention and removal must first move through that system before a federal district court can intervene.
The arrest began at a naturalization interview
Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents arrested the lawful permanent resident on April 14, 2025, at a U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services office in Colchester, Vermont. He had arrived for a scheduled naturalization interview.
The government relied on Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The provision, known as the “Foreign Policy Bar,” permits removal when the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe that a noncitizen’s presence or activities could create “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio supplied the national-security and foreign-policy determination cited in the case. The provision has rarely been used.
The proceedings then moved through several rulings. On February 11, 2026, Immigration Judge Nina Flores terminated the removal case after finding that the government had not properly authenticated a memorandum from Rubio.
The Board of Immigration Appeals reinstated the proceedings in June 2026. On June 3, 2026, Immigration Judge Angela Munson ordered deportation to Jordan.
The Second Circuit’s ruling addressed a separate question: whether the Vermont district court had authority to order release while the removal case continued. The panel concluded that it “did not have subject matter jurisdiction.”
That conclusion reinforces the exhaustion-of-remedies doctrine. Under the appellate ruling, a person generally must pursue available relief through the immigration system before seeking intervention from a federal district court.
Rights groups warn of a wider use of the foreign-policy provision
The American Civil Liberties Union and other civil rights organizations have challenged the detention’s legality. They say the administration is using the Foreign Policy Bar to punish political activism and bypass constitutional protections available to lawful residents.
Their objections extend beyond one detention. The groups argue that allowing foreign-policy consequences to serve as a basis for detention and deportation could create a “dangerous precedent” for immigrants who participate in political advocacy.
The case has also become part of a broader dispute over pro-Palestinian campus protests. The activist was a Columbia University graduate student, and his case has been discussed alongside that of classmate Mahmoud Khalil.
Civil rights advocates describe the enforcement approach as a possible “chilling effect” on Green Card holders who speak publicly or organize around foreign-policy issues. Their concern is that political participation could expose lawful residents to detention and removal proceedings without immediate review by a federal district court.
The administration has presented a different account. In a May 9, 2025 press release, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said court documents showed that the activist allegedly told a gun-shop owner that he had used guns to “kill Jews.” She linked the government’s position to restoring “the rule of law” in the immigration system.
McLaughlin made a similar argument after the initial release order on April 30, 2025.
“The Trump Administration is committed to restoring the rule of law to our immigration system. No judge, not this one or any other, has the authority to unilaterally override the Secretary of State’s determination regarding national security and foreign policy.”
The statement framed Rubio’s determination as controlling and rejected the district court’s authority to override it. The civil rights groups challenging the detention say that position gives the executive branch too much power over a lawful resident’s speech and liberty.
The removal case remains active after the appellate ruling
The July 21 decision removed the legal shield created by the earlier release order, but it did not itself direct agents to take the activist back into custody. His case remains tied to the removal order issued by Munson and to the pending appeal in the First Circuit.
The ruling also leaves the immigration court system at the center of the dispute. The initial termination, the BIA’s reinstatement, and the later deportation order show how the case has moved between immigration judges and appellate review while the federal courts considered their own authority.
The outcome could affect how Green Card holders challenge detention during removal proceedings. The civil rights organizations say the decision makes federal habeas relief harder to obtain before administrative remedies are exhausted.
The case now combines two unresolved questions: whether the government can remove a lawful permanent resident under Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i), and how quickly a federal court may review detention while that dispute proceeds. The pending First Circuit appeal will keep those questions active after the Second Circuit’s jurisdiction ruling.
