Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian pro-Palestinian activist and legal permanent resident of the United States, has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court in an effort to block his deportation. Khalil, a Columbia University graduate who was arrested in March 2025 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents amid campus protests, has become a prominent figure in the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on pro-Palestinian activism at U.S. universities.

Khalil’s case centers on a seldom-used provision of immigration law invoked by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who determined that Khalil’s presence in the United States was contrary to the national interest. Rubio cited concerns related to Khalil’s role in protests against Israeli military actions in Gaza and the administration’s view that his continued residence was inconsistent with Trump’s foreign policy aims. Khalil, however, has denied allegations of promoting antisemitism, asserting that criticism of Israel does not equate to antisemitism.

Following his arrest, Khalil was detained for several months, including time spent at a detention facility in Louisiana. A district court judge in New Jersey later found the statute Rubio relied on was likely unconstitutional and ordered Khalil’s release. Despite this ruling, the federal government has pursued deportation measures, prompting ongoing legal challenges.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled in favor of the administration’s position that Khalil’s detention and removal proceedings fall under the jurisdiction of immigration courts rather than federal courts. This decision allows authorities to detain and potentially deport Khalil again. Khalil’s legal team disputes this, arguing that constitutional claims related to free speech and retaliatory detention must be heard in federal courts. The appeals court did not address the constitutional arguments directly but focused on procedural jurisdictional questions.

In their Supreme Court filing, Khalil’s attorneys urged the justices to affirm federal courts’ authority to review constitutional challenges against punitive detention, emphasizing the government’s actions as retaliation for Khalil’s activism. Alina Das, director of New York University’s Immigrant Rights Clinic and one of Khalil’s lawyers, stated that the federal government imprisoned Khalil for his speech and called on the court to intervene to prevent the immigration system from being used as a tool to punish dissent.

The Trump administration has made similar legal moves in the case of Badar Khan Suri, a Georgetown University postdoctoral fellow accused of supporting Hamas who also faces deportation. The government has requested that the Supreme Court review Suri’s case and may seek to have it considered alongside Khalil’s, as both raise comparable legal issues concerning immigration court jurisdiction and constitutional protections.

Khalil, who was born and raised in a refugee camp in Syria, has been actively promoting his memoir, "No Land to Stand On," which details his arrest and detention experience, including missing the birth of his child. Meanwhile, an immigration court ruled in April that Khalil could be deported—a decision that observers noted was unusually swift and marked by procedural irregularities. Khalil may appeal this ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which could provide an additional pathway for judicial review.

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear Khalil’s appeal is expected in the coming months, with any oral arguments likely occurring in the spring and a ruling by the end of the court’s term in June or early July.