Third Circuit Overturns Order Blocking Mahmoud Khalil Arrest and Deportation

On January 15, 2026, a divided Third Circuit panel held that a federal district court in New Jersey lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to block the arrest and deportation process involving Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident (LPR) and prominent pro-Palestinian activist.

Practically, the ruling narrows the path for noncitizens who try to stop immigration detention or removal through district-court habeas when their claims are framed as constitutional or retaliation-based.

In plain English: the court said that many challenges to detention and removal must generally be pursued through the immigration court system first, and then through the statutory petition-for-review process tied to a final removal order, rather than through a district judge’s injunction.

What changes immediately is procedural leverage. The decision removes the district-court block that had kept ICE from acting under that order.

What may still be litigated includes requests for a stay, rehearing, or later review in the court of appeals once the immigration process produces a final order.

The vote was 2–1, with the majority emphasizing INA “channeling” rules. The dissent warned the approach can reduce meaningful judicial review for certain constitutional claims.

A circuit decision that “clears the path” for enforcement does not mean removal is guaranteed. It means the government has more legal room to act, unless another court order or stay intervenes.

Court Ruling Details (majority’s channeling theory; dissent’s review concerns)

Majority: challenges must follow the INA’s review structure

The majority concluded that the district court could not intervene because the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) generally routes (“channels”) many removal-related legal and constitutional disputes into a specific review track.

Under that structure, issues are typically raised in immigration proceedings, then reviewed in the court of appeals after a final order of removal is entered. In practical terms, the majority’s approach makes it harder to use a district-court filing as a fast vehicle to stop detention or removal when the dispute is intertwined with removal proceedings.

The opinion’s bottom-line message is that Congress set a specialized process, and litigants must usually use it.

Dissent: reduced judicial review for First Amendment-retaliation claims

Judge Arianna Freeman dissented, warning that channeling can foreclose effective review where a noncitizen alleges detention or removal efforts were driven by retaliation for protected speech.

The dissent’s practical concern is timing. If district courts cannot act, some claims may not be meaningfully heard until later, when custody or removal consequences may already have occurred.

Why personal facts matter, but do not immunize someone

Khalil’s status facts—LPR, U.S. citizen spouse, and U.S.-born child—often matter in immigration litigation. They can affect equities, bond arguments, and discretionary judgments.

They may also shape how courts perceive harm. But they do not automatically bar DHS from detaining or seeking removal. Eligibility for relief still depends on statutes, proof, and procedural posture.

Deadline watch: When an appellate ruling issues, parties often have a short window to seek a stay or rehearing. Those windows can be tight and rule-driven. Counsel should assess timing immediately.

Official Statements and Policy Context (DHS messaging vs court constraints)

After the ruling, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin publicly characterized the decision as confirming that “an immigration judge, not a district judge,” should decide release questions in this posture.

DHS also stated it would work to enforce what it called a “lawful removal order,” and urged Khalil to “self-deport.” Agency statements like these serve multiple functions: they explain the government’s view of authority and message enforcement priorities.

But public messaging does not override legal limits such as stays, bond rulings, or later appellate orders.

This case also sits within a policy-sensitive part of the INA, where removability can be asserted on foreign policy grounds. In such cases, executive branch assertions may carry weight, but they still operate inside statutory procedures, evidentiary rules, and judicial review boundaries.

Legal Framework and Precedent (foreign policy removability; channeling; emergency relief)

Foreign policy-based removability

The reported basis for removability is INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i), which authorizes removal when the Secretary of State concludes a noncitizen’s presence may cause “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”

This is sometimes described as a “foreign policy ground” of deportability. A leading immigration adjudication discussing the foreign policy framework is Matter of Ruiz-Massieu, 22 I&N Dec. 833 (BIA 1999).

While factual contexts differ, Ruiz-Massieu is often cited for how adjudicators treat foreign policy determinations and the government’s asserted interests.

What “channeling” means in immigration litigation

“Channeling” refers to Congress directing many immigration-related challenges into a designated path—typically immigration court proceedings, then BIA review, and then a petition for review in the court of appeals after a final order.

The Third Circuit’s analysis reinforces that courts may reject attempts to use district court as a parallel track when the relief sought would interfere with removal proceedings.

Effect on TROs and emergency injunction practice

For advocates and respondents, the ruling may shift emergency strategy. It can reduce the availability of district-court TRO practice in cases framed as challenges to detention or removal when the court views the claim as belonging in the INA review channel.

• Faster immigration-court motions and bond strategy.
• Building a record for later court-of-appeals review.
• Seeking stays in the correct forum at the correct time.

Practical implications extend to students, researchers, and activists who travel frequently or maintain ties abroad, including to places like the UAE.

Risk management is not about silencing speech. It is about documentation and preparedness. Keep immigration records organized and preserve evidence relevant to motive and process.

Consult counsel before travel if you have been contacted by ICE or DHS.

Travel can trigger new screening. A person without valid status, or with an enforcement flag, can face detention at a port of entry. Do not assume prior admissions guarantee reentry.

Impact and Next Steps for Khalil and Others (stays, rehearing, Supreme Court posture)

The panel decision “clears the path” operationally because it removes the district court barrier and validates the government’s position on forum and jurisdiction. That can increase the risk of rearrest if ICE chooses to act.

Still, enforcement remains subject to discretion and any later court order.

1. Motion for stay. Seek a stay pending further review.
2. Petition for rehearing. Consider rehearing or rehearing en banc (full court).
3. Supreme Court emergency applications. Potential applications depending on posture and urgency.

For similarly situated readers, the facts that often matter next are intensely procedural: where the person is physically located, which ICE field office has custody authority, and what notices were served.

Also consider whether there is a final order of removal, what deadlines apply, and access to counsel to file urgent motions quickly.

Deadline watch: Immigration deadlines are often unforgiving. Missing a filing date can limit review options. Confirm dates from official notices and the docket.

Key Dates and Timeline (why sequencing matters)

• March 8, 2025: Khalil was arrested and taken into custody. That typically marks the start of detention-related litigation decisions, including bond and habeas considerations.
• Over 100 days in custody: Extended detention often becomes a focal point for constitutional and statutory arguments, particularly around due process.
• June 2025: The district judge released Khalil on bail. That order can change the immediate custody posture, but it does not necessarily end removal proceedings.
• January 15, 2026: The Third Circuit reversed, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction. That reversal matters because it can remove the legal barrier that previously prevented enforcement actions.

Sequencing affects which forum is available, which standard applies, and whether emergency relief is still possible. For readers facing detention or threatened removal, contemporaneous documentation and docket monitoring can be decisive.

Official Sources and References (where to verify updates)

The case is commonly styled as Khalil v. DHS, and the Third Circuit materials are associated with Case No. 25-1963. Readers should verify any later developments, including stays, rehearing orders, or the issuance of the mandate.

Primary official sources to monitor include Third Circuit opinions and orders, DHS public statements, and EOIR (immigration court system information): https://www.justice.gov/eoir

Because appellate litigation can move quickly after a published decision, readers should also check for subsequent orders that change what DHS may do next.

Practical takeaways (and why counsel matters here)

• The decision strengthens the argument that many detention/removal challenges must be brought through the INA’s structured review process.
• Speech-retaliation claims may still be raised, but the fight can become more about forum and timing than merits at the earliest stage.
• LPR status and U.S. family ties can matter, but they do not automatically prevent detention or removal.
• If you fear imminent arrest or deportation, the first question is often not “Who is right,” but “Which court can act today.”

Given the stakes—detention, removal, and long-term bars—people in fact patterns even loosely similar to Khalil’s should consult a qualified immigration attorney promptly. This is especially true for activists, students, and travelers who may face screening at airports or during status renewals.

Resources: https://www.aila.org/find-a-lawyer