Filed Date: March 9, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is one of numerous lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s abrupt termination of immigration visas—mostly student or work visas—with no notice to the visa-holders and with dubious or no legal basis. You can see all of the cases here.
This case challenges the detention and attempted deportation of student activist Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of the campus protests against the war in Gaza at Columbia University throughout the spring of 2024. Khalil was a lawful permanent resident of the United States in possession of a green card who had recently completed his graduate studies at Columbia. On March 8, 2025, agents from the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) detained Khalil at his apartment, stating that his student visa had been revoked. When Khalil produced documentation showing that he held a green card, not a student visa, the agents responded that they were revoking his green card instead. The DHS agents did not show Khalil any documentation authorizing his detention or his green card revocation.
The next day, March 9, 2025, the government issued Khalil a “notice to appear”, stating that his deportation was sought under Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), a rarely-used provision that permits removal where the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe continued presence of the individual in the U.S. “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.”
Initial Petition in the Southern District of New York
That same day, Khalil filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against William P. Joyce, the Acting Director of the New York Field Office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”); Caleb Vitello, the Acting Director of ICE; Kristi Noem, the DHS Secretary; and Pamela Bondi, the U.S. Attorney General. Khalil alleged that his detention and attempted deportation constituted retaliation, discrimination, and prior restraint in violation of his First Amendment right to free speech and his Fifth Amendment right to due process. Khalil sought an order releasing him from custody, an injunction prohibiting the government from transferring him outside the Court’s jurisdiction, and a declaration that the government’s actions violated the First and Fifth Amendments. He also requested that he be granted bail pending the adjudication of his habeas petition under Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001). Khalil was represented by lawyers from the ACLU, New York Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Creating Law Enforcement Accountability & Responsibility (“CLEAR”) Project, and private counsel. The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman.
Hours after he filed his habeas petition, Khalil was moved to a detention facility in Louisiana. In response, and in order to retain its jurisdiction, Judge Furman gave notice that Khalil was not to be removed from the United States unless and until the court ordered otherwise. Khalil also filed a motion to compel the respondents to return him to the Southern District of New York.
An initial hearing was held on March 12, 2025. The respondents argued for a change of venue to New Jersey or Louisiana, where Khalil had been held, while Khalil requested he be returned to the Southern District of New York. In response, the Court ordered Respondents to file a motion to transfer or dismiss for improper venue by 11:59 pm that day. Briefing on that motion and Khalil’s motion to compel his return to New York was scheduled to be completed by March 17, 2025. Judge Furman kept in place his March 10 order that Khalil was not to be removed from the United States until the Court ordered otherwise.
The respondents' ensuing motion to dismiss or transfer venue, filed on March 12, argued that jurisdiction didn't lie in the Southern District of New York because a habeas petitioner must file his petition in the district in which he is being held under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004). The respondents asserted since Khalil was being held in Jena, Louisiana, the Western District of Louisiana was the proper venue.
Khalil filed an Amended Petition on March 13, adding President Donald J. Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio as respondents. The Amended Petition also added a claim that Secretary Rubio’s determination under the INA that Khalil’s continued presence in the U.S. would adversely affect foreign policy interests violated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).
On March 14, the court issued a memo endorsement adopting the parties’ proposed briefing schedule. Pursuant to this schedule, Khalil filed a motion for bail under Mapp v. Reno on March 14. Respondents are scheduled to file their opposition to the bail motion by March 19 or one day after the Court rules on their motion to dismiss or transfer venue, whichever is sooner. Khalil is also expected to file a motion for a preliminary injunction by March 17, with briefing on that motion to be completed by March 28.
In accordance with the court’s March 12 order, the respondents filed their opposition to Khalil’s motion to compel his return to New York on March 14. Khalil filed his opposition to the respondents’ motion to dismiss or transfer venue on the same day, arguing that venue was proper under exceptions recognized in Padilla and because Respondent Joyce, who is based in New York City, was Khalil's "immediate custodian" at the time that he filed his habeas petition on March 9. On March 16, Judge Furman ordered the parties to supplement their briefings on the motion to dismiss or transfer to address the two federal statutes authorizing a transfer of venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The parties filed supplemental briefs addressing the transfer statutes the next day.
Khalil filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on March 17, 2025, asking the court to preliminarily release him, enjoin Secretary Rubio's determination under INA Section 237(a)(4)(C)(i), and enjoin the respondents from enforcing a policy "of targeting for detention and removal noncitizens who engage in
constitutionally protected expressive activity in the United States in support of Palestinian rights or critical of Israel." In addition to this motion, Khalil also filed a reply in support of his motion to compel his transfer the same day.
Transfer to the District of New Jersey
On March 19, 2025, Judge Furman transferred the case to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, finding that because Khalil was detained in Elizabeth, New Jersey at the time his habeas petition was filed, that court had jurisdiction over the matter under the general rule that petitioners must challenge their detention in the district of their confinement. The opinion rejected the respondents' argument that the case should be transferred to the Western District of Louisiana, finding that the relevant inquiry is where khalil was confined at the time he filed his habeas petition, not where he is currently confined. The Court further found that the filing of the petition in the Southern District of New York was not an error by Khalil's attorney because at the time of filing, his attorney had a good faith reasonable belief that Khalil was being held in New York, given that DHS refused to provide her any information about Khalil's whereabouts. Judge Furman emphasized that his March 10 order barring the government from removing Khalil remained in effect unless and until the New Jersey court ordered otherwise. The case was assigned to Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.
The next day, the respondents renewed their motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana, arguing that Judge Furman erred in transferring the case to New Jersey.
Also on March 20, Khalil filed an amended brief in support of his motion for bail, adding a case from the Third Circuit (where the District of New Jersey sits), Lucas v. Hadden, 790 F.2d 365 (3d Cir. 1986) that allows federal courts to grant bail to habeas petitioners. The respondents filed their opposition to the amended bail motion on March 23.
On March 21, Khalil filed a supplemental brief to his motion to compel his return, asking that he be returned to the District of New Jersey. The respondents filed a supplemental brief in opposition to the return motion later that day, and Khalil filed his reply on March 24. Also on March 24, Khalil filed his opposition to the respondents' renewed motion to transfer the case to Louisiana.
The next day, Khalil filed an amended brief in support of his motion for a preliminary injunction ("PI").
Judge Farbiarz denied the respondents' motion to transfer on April 1, also stating that a habeas court has jurisdiction when khalil was physically present in that court's district at the time of filing. After finding that Khalil was in New Jersey at the time his habeas petition was filed, the court concluded that jurisdiction was proper in New Jersey. Notably, the court asked the parties to submit briefings on whether it should issue an order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b), which allows district judges in civil actions to ask an appeals court to review an otherwise unappealable decision where the issue "involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion." Under § 1292(b), the court of appeals then decides whether it will permit an appeal.
The respondents filed a letter the next day stating that they believed an interlocutory appeal was appropriate in this case. The same day, the respondents also filed their opposition to Khalil's amended PI motion, once again arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction and separately arguing that Khalil was unlikely to succeed on his claims.
Khalil filed a letter opposing certification of an interlocutory appeal on April 3. He also filed an amended complaint on the same day, adding as a respondent the warden at the ICE facility in New Jersey where he was being held at the time his petition was filed.
Interlocutory Appeal to the Third Circuit
On April 4, Judge Farbiarz certified an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, finding that the three prongs of 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b)-a controlling question of law, a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and a material advancement of the ultimate termination of the litigation-were met in this case. However, the court indicated that proceedings in the district court would not be stayed while the appeal went forward.
Ongoing Proceedings in the District of New Jersey
Khalil filed a letter on April 4, 2025, requesting a hearing on his pending motions for release pending adjudication and/or to compel his return to New Jersey, as his wife was due to give birth imminently.
On April 11, a Louisiana immigration judge in a separate proceeding ruled that Khalil could be removed from the United States. The judge held that Khalil was deportable under 8 U.S.C 1227 (a)(4)(C)(i) and the requirements for deportation had been met by the government.
Despite the immigration judge's ruling, the New Jersey District Court held that it could retain jurisdiction over the case on April 29, 2025. The government argued that there were "two jurisdiction stripping" statutes that would nullify the district court's jurisdiction over the habeas petition: Section 1252(b)(9) and Section 1252 (g). The court found both arguments unpersuasive. Judge Farbiarz explained that 1252(b)(9) only applies when a final order of removal has been entered and that the criteria for 1252(g) had not been met in this situation. Thus, the court retains jurisdiction under the habeas corpus statute. A few days later, on May 1, 2025, the court denied the request for certification of an interlocutory appeal.
Khalil's wife went into labor eight days earlier than expected on April 20, 2025. Khalil then moved for urgent bail release. This motion was terminated later that day.
On May 1, 2025, Khalil filed a third amended complaint in the District Court of New Jersey. The amended complaint argued that venue is proper in New Jersey and included claims that the government engaged in further retaliatory actions after the commencement of the lawsuit.
In response, the government filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and improper venue on May 5, 2025. First, the government argued the court does not have authority to hear the challenge to removability pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g), (b)(9). Secondly, the government argued that venue is improper because the Supreme Court has reiterated that for habeas petitions, jurisdiction lies in the district of confinement. Since Khalil is confined in Louisiana, venue would be proper in Louisiana. Further, according to traditional venue considerations, the government argued that venue in Louisiana is proper because the events giving rise to the petition are related to Khalil's detention in Louisiana. The court denied the motion to dismiss for want of venue on May 9, 2025 finding the government did not persuasively explain why the venue considerations would favor dismissal. The court also held that the jurisdictional claims were already addressed by the court and reaffirmed in a recent ruling by the Second Circuit. See Ozturk v. Hyde.
On May 14, Khalil asked the court for a preliminary injunction to stop federal officials from removing him from the United States. On May 28, the court found that although Khalil might succeed on the merits of his vagueness requirement, he had not addressed the other legal requirements for a preliminary injunction. The court also rejected Khalil’s second argument — that his removal was based on an unconstitutional federal policy — because it wasn’t fully explained. The court provisionally declined to grant a preliminary injunction, but allowed further briefing responsive to its concerns.
Khalil accordingly submitted a two-page addendum to his preliminary injunction motion on June 4. In it, he described the irreparable harms he was suffering due to his detention, including emotional, economic, and reputational damage. He also argued that his detention was unjustified because the government hadn’t shown he was a flight risk or a danger to the public.
On June 11, the court granted the preliminary injunction. It agreed that Khalil was suffering serious harm — such as missing the birth of his child, damage to his free speech rights, and loss of income and reputation. The court believed that Khalil’s detention was likely due to the Secretary of State’s determination, not the immigration charges that were filed afterward. Since lawful permanent residents are rarely detained during removal proceedings, and because of the chilling effect on free speech, the court found that granting the injunction served the public interest.
On June 13, Khalil asked the court to order his release. The government responded that the injunction only blocked removal based on the Secretary of State’s determination, not on other grounds — specifically, the charges related to Khalil’s permanent residency application. The government pointed out that while the court had said it was “unlikely” Khalil would be detained for those charges, it hadn’t ruled that such detention would be illegal.
That same day, the court denied Khalil’s request for release. Judge Farbiarz referred back to the May 28 opinion and said Khalil still hadn’t shown why it would be unlawful for the government to detain him based on the second set of charges. The court suggested that Khalil ask the immigration judge handling his case for bail.
In response, on June 18, Khalil moved for release pursuant to his pending motion for bail, or in alternative, his return to New Jersey. Khalil argued that the release would not circumvent immigration proceedings. He pointed to other recent cases where petitioners in habeas cases were released on bond despite being ineligible for immigration bond. Khalil also argued that his release would be necessary to ensure an effective habeas remedy considering the extraordinary nature of the circumstances of his detention.
Two days later, June 20, 2025, Judge Farbriaz granted the motion for release on bail, and denied the government's request for a stay of the release. The court ordered that Khalil be released from immigration custody that day pursuant pursuant to bail conditions to be set by a magistrate judge. Judge Farbriaz ordered that the bail conditions must not include electronic monitoring nor that a bond be immediately posted, holding that the evidentiary record did not demonstrate any necessity for such measures.
The magistrate judge conditions were set that same day, requiring Khalil to surrender his passport(s) and any travel documents to ICE, and restricting his movements to New York and Michigan generally; New Jersey and Louisiana for court appearances and attorney visits only, and Washington D.C. for lobbying/legislative purposes only. Khalil was accordingly released. The government immediately appealed and moved for a stay pending appeal. The motion to stay pending appeal was denied with the court finding that the government did not demonstrate irreparable harm caused by Khalil's release.
On June 25, 2025, the petitioner alleged that ICE officials handed him an "Order of Release on Recognizance," which included a requirement that Mr. Khalil regularly report in writing or in person to an ICE duty officer. The government responded that requiring Khalil to report is not contrary to the Court's order and is consistent with ICE's regular release practices.
Clarification on June 11 Preliminary Injunction
In addition, the petitioner contended that the court's preliminary order enjoining the Respondents from "seeking to remove the petitioner from the United States based on the Secretary of State's determination" enjoined the government from litigating removability charges. The petitioner alleged that "seeking" encompassed any DHS pursuit of removal based on the aforementioned charges. The government declined to give a substantive response to the scope of the preliminary injunction. The judge ordered briefing on the issue from both parties.
On July 17, the court clarified three ways the meaning of its June 11 preliminary injunction:
The government immediately moved to stay these alterations to the June 11 preliminary injunction pending an appeal. This motion was denied in part and granted in part. The order was "stayed only insofar as it requires Appellants to cause the Immigration Judge to cause the Immigration Judge to consider the appellee's request for waiver of removability."
Second Motion for a Preliminary Injunction
On July 9, the petitioner moved for a new preliminary injunction enjoining the respondents from seeking to remove Khalil based on the additional charges of inadmissibility ("post-hoc charges"). The court ordered the Khalil explain why he should get "two-bites at the apple." Khalil claimed that parties are routinely permitted to seek further preliminary relief on factual and legal bases not yet raised or where further developments warrant it. He alleged that the government's decision to detain him solely on the post-hoc charges accorded after the ruling on the first motion. Khalil stated the court should entertain the motion on its merits due to the ongoing irreparable harm he is experiencing.
This motion was denied on August 8, 2025. The court refused to "exercise its discretion to allow what would mainly be a second bite at the apple." Judge Farbriaz found the new motion to be essentially the old motion in "new packaging." On balance, only old facts appeared to be at the core of the new motion.
The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Meredith Ulle (3/15/2025)
Jinan Abufarha (6/21/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69757814/parties/khalil-v-joyce/
AHMAD, NAZ (New Jersey)
ANELLO, FARRIN R. (New Jersey)
AZMY, BAHER (New Jersey)
BARRON, KYLE (New Jersey)
Belsher, Amy (New York)
ANELLO, FARRIN R. (New Jersey)
Biklen, Molly Knopp (New Jersey)
Dallal, Shezza Abboushi (New York)
Dratel, Joshua Lewis (New Jersey)
DUONG, ALANNA THANH (New Jersey)
GREUBEL, GREG HAROLD (New Jersey)
Hauss, Brian Matthew (New York)
Hodgson, Robert Andrew (New York)
Lewis, Lindsay Anne (New York)
LINHORST, MOLLY KC (New Jersey)
MIANO, JOHN MICHAEL (New Jersey)
Oestericher, Jeffrey Stuart (New York)
Salama, Veronica R. (New York)
SAMPAT, DHRUMAN YOGESH (New Jersey)
Sisay, Samah Mcgona (New York)
TAKEMOTO, TYLER BECK (New York)
Toppa, Mudassar Hayat (New York)
Waterman, Brandon Matthew (New York)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69757814/khalil-v-joyce/
Last updated Aug. 26, 2025, 2:30 a.m.
State / Territory: New Jersey
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 9, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a Columbia University student who was heavily involved in pro-Palestine demonstrations on Columbia's campus in late 2023 and early 2024. He is of Palestinian heritage and is a legal permanent resident of the United States.
Attorney Organizations:
Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)
ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project
New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU)
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of Justice (- United States (national) -), Federal
President Donald J. Trump (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Department of State (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
Immigration/Border: