Khalil, a former Columbia University graduate student, said through his lawyers that he plans to seek Supreme Court review after the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia voted 6-5 against rehearing his case with the full complement of judges. The decision came after a previous panel ruling had moved the government closer to deporting him, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which is involved in representing him.
In the latest step, judges rejected an effort to reconsider the appeals court’s earlier ruling, Khalil’s lawyers said, and the ACLU said it expects the Supreme Court appeal to be filed in the coming months, possibly in late summer. Khalil’s legal team also said it will ask the 3rd Circuit for an order to prevent the decision from taking effect and to bar Khalil from being detained or deported while the request for the Supreme Court is pending.
The central procedural dispute began with the 3rd Circuit’s January decision, when a three-judge panel found that a federal judge in New Jersey who had sided with Khalil and ordered his release did not have jurisdiction to decide the matter. The January ruling said the case was premature because, under federal law, such challenges must first move through the immigration court system, which is part of the Justice Department rather than the judicial branch.
The appeals court’s decision did not resolve what Khalil is seeking to prove on the merits—whether the government’s plan to remove him is unconstitutional. Khalil’s lawyers have argued that the Trump administration’s effort to throw him out of the U.S. is linked to his campus activism and criticism of Israel, and they say those efforts violate constitutional protections.
In dissent, Judge Cheryl Ann Krause argued that the court was not doing what she said was required to address Khalil’s constitutional claims. She wrote that the court was “abdicating our duty to meaningfully review Khalil’s constitutional claims,” and she said the judicial branch cannot check other branches if it “write[s] ourselves out of relevance,” according to the account of the dissent.
Khalil, 31, also has an additional appeal pending in the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Louisiana after the Board of Immigration Appeals upheld his removal order. Through his lawyers, Khalil argued that the immigration judge who issued the order failed to consider relevant evidence and wrongly upheld a charge that he misrepresented information in his application for legal permanent resident status.
His lawyers said that charge was retaliation for his protest activity. The immigration judge indicated Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where Khalil maintains citizenship through a distant relative, or to Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp to a Palestinian family. Khalil’s lawyers have said he would face mortal danger if forced to return to either country.
Federal officials have accused Khalil of activities “aligned to Hamas,” according to the reporting, though they have not presented evidence to support that claim and have not accused him of criminal conduct. The reporting also said officials accused him of failing to disclose information in his green card application, and Khalil has dismissed the allegations as “baseless and ridiculous,” framing his arrest and detention as the result of exercising his right to free speech while he advocated for a free Palestine and an end to the genocide in Gaza.
The government’s justification for Khalil’s arrest relied on a seldom-used statute that allows for expulsion of noncitizens whose beliefs officials deem pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. In June 2025, a federal judge, Michael Farbiarz, ruled that the government’s justification would likely be declared unconstitutional and ordered Khalil released.
President Donald Trump’s administration appealed Farbiarz’s ruling, arguing the deportation decision should be handled by an immigration judge rather than a federal court. The 3rd Circuit ruled 2-1 in the administration’s favor, and the reporting said Judge Emil Bove did not participate in the vote on whether to rehear the decision; Bove later denied a request that he step aside, calling it moot.
In the broader fight, the ACLU said today’s court ruling is not the end of Khalil’s case. “Today’s decision is not the final word, and we still strongly believe in our arguments going forward,” Brett Max Kaufman, an ACLU senior counsel, said in a statement.