US court ruling jeopardizes freedom for anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil
A US federal appeals panel on Thursday reversed a lower court decision that released former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil from an immigration jail, bringing the US government a step closer to detaining and ultimately deporting the Palestinian anti-Israel activist.
The three-judge panel of the 3rd US Circuit Court of Appeals didn’t rule on the key issue in Khalil’s case: whether the White House’s effort to throw Khalil out of the US over his campus activism and criticism of Israel is unconstitutional.
But in its 2-1 decision, the panel ruled a federal judge in New Jersey didn’t have jurisdiction to decide the matter at this time. Federal law requires the case to fully move through the immigration courts before Khalil can challenge the decision, they wrote.
“That scheme ensures that petitioners get just one bite at the apple — not zero or two,” the panel wrote. “But it also means that some petitioners, like Khalil, will have to wait to seek relief for allegedly unlawful government conduct.”
The law bars Khalil “from attacking his detention and removal in a habeas petition,” the panel added.
It was not clear whether the US government would seek to detain Khalil, a legal permanent resident, again while his legal challenges continue.
Thursday’s decision marked a major win for the White House’s sweeping campaign to detain and deport noncitizens who joined protests against Israel.
In a statement distributed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Khalil said the appeals ruling was “deeply disappointing, but it does not break our resolve.”
He added: “The door may have been opened for potential re-detainment down the line, but it has not closed our commitment to Palestine and to justice and accountability. I will continue to fight, through every legal avenue and with every ounce of determination, until my rights, and the rights of others like me, are fully protected.”
Baher Azmy, an attorney for Khalil, called the ruling disappointing and “contrary to rulings of........
