Justice Department Challenges Block on Activist’s Deportation

On Tuesday, Justice Department attorneys presented their arguments in the Court of Appeals regarding the decision to halt the detention and removal of activist Mahmoud Khalil. They described the lower court’s ruling as “fundamentally flawed” and urged that it be overturned.

Drew Ensign, representing the Justice Department, faced some tough questions during the hearings in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This case has drawn significant attention due to its implications for the constitutional rights of noncitizens.

Ensign supported the view that the New Jersey District Court lacked proper jurisdiction in Khalil’s situation. He argued that Khalil’s habeas corpus petition wasn’t an appropriate way to contest his detention and suggested that immigration court was the correct venue under Department of Justice authority.

“Habeas corpus was the path chosen by the appellant,” Ensign noted. “The district court granted an indefensible injunction and allowed this illegal circumvention.” He expressed that the appeals court should reverse the earlier ruling.

Federal Judge Halts Deportation of Mahmoud Khalil

Khalil, who has a degree from Columbia University and led protests against the Israeli government, has been trying to stay in the U.S. since March. It was then that he was charged with immigration violations connected to his pro-Palestinian activism and alleged sympathy for Hamas.

As a legal permanent resident, Khalil was apprehended and subsequently marked for removal by an immigration judge, based on comments that the Trump administration argued jeopardized national security.

In June, Judge Michael Fabiaz of New Jersey, appointed by Biden, intervened, stating that the immigration judge’s conclusion violated Khalil’s First Amendment rights. The judge ordered Khalil’s release on bail.

Khalil’s Advocacy Sparks Legal Dispute

In a further ruling, Judge Fabiaz disagreed with a new immigration judge’s decision claiming that Khalil could face removal due to accusations that he had falsified information on his green card application, a claim his legal team is actively contesting.

Ensign accused Khalil’s lawyers of trying to sidestep the established immigration law procedures designed for deportation decisions and appeals. He stated, “Their actions aim to avoid the well-defined scheme for judicial review set by Congress.”

One of the judges on the three-member panel mentioned that Khalil’s lawyers should not be criticized for filing a habeas corpus writ in New Jersey back in March, as they were not informed about their client’s actual whereabouts at that time. Khalil had a tumultuous arrest and was moved between locations, complicating matters.

The judge noted, “The lawyers didn’t know. They had to prepare for the worst. Unless we create a black hole of jurisdiction, what else are they supposed to do?”

While the appeals court judges did not specify when they would announce their decision, a ruling could come at any moment.