Mahmoud Khalil, the former Columbia University graduate student whose immigration case has become a national test of deportation power and political speech protections, plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court refused to reconsider a ruling that could allow the government to detain him again and move toward deportation.

Khalil’s legal team said Friday that it will seek Supreme Court review of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision and ask that the ruling be put on hold while the appeal proceeds. The move follows the appeals court’s denial of rehearing in a case that has drawn attention from civil liberties groups, immigration lawyers, university communities and political leaders because it sits at the intersection of campus protest, immigration enforcement and constitutional rights.

Khalil, a lawful permanent resident and former Columbia student, was arrested in 2025 after becoming publicly associated with pro-Palestinian protests at the university. He has denied government allegations that would justify removal and has argued that the deportation effort is rooted in retaliation for his activism and speech. His lawyers have said the case should not proceed while federal courts are still considering whether the government violated his constitutional rights.

The latest dispute centers on whether a federal district judge had authority to order Khalil’s release from immigration detention while his broader challenge moved through the courts. In January, the 3rd Circuit ruled that the lower court lacked jurisdiction to grant that relief, saying Khalil’s challenges belonged first in the immigration system. The decision reversed an order that had allowed him to leave immigration custody after roughly three months of detention.

The appeals court’s refusal to rehear the case leaves Khalil’s lawyers with the Supreme Court as the next venue for emergency relief and possible review. They are expected to argue that the appellate ruling improperly restricts habeas corpus review and leaves noncitizens vulnerable to detention or removal before federal judges can consider serious constitutional claims. Civil liberties advocates have framed the issue as broader than Khalil, saying it could affect how courts handle claims that immigration power is being used to punish political expression.

The government has defended its authority to pursue removal proceedings against Khalil. Immigration officials have argued in court that the case belongs within the immigration adjudication system and that federal district courts should not override that process at the detention stage. The administration has also relied on immigration law provisions tied to foreign policy and national security interests, a legal route that Khalil’s supporters describe as unusually broad and vulnerable to political misuse.

Khalil’s case has unfolded in multiple legal forums. Alongside the federal court fight over detention and habeas jurisdiction, he has also challenged the removal case in immigration proceedings. An immigration judge previously ordered him deported, while his lawyers maintained that other court orders and pending appeals prevented immediate removal. The Board of Immigration Appeals later rejected an effort to terminate the deportation case, intensifying the push toward higher court review.

The case has remained politically charged because of the context in which Khalil was arrested. He became visible during Columbia’s pro-Palestinian protest movement, which drew national scrutiny, congressional hearings, donor pressure and aggressive federal attention toward universities accused of failing to address antisemitism. Khalil and his supporters argue that the government has blurred the line between immigration enforcement and punishment for dissent. The administration and its allies have said the government has authority to act when noncitizens’ conduct or presence is deemed contrary to U.S. interests.

At issue for the Supreme Court would not necessarily be the full merits of whether Khalil can ultimately be deported. The immediate question is more procedural but highly consequential: whether the appeals court ruling should take effect while Khalil seeks review, and whether federal judges can intervene when a noncitizen claims immigration detention or removal is being used for unconstitutional retaliation.

If the Supreme Court grants emergency relief, Khalil could remain protected from re-arrest under the challenged ruling while the justices consider whether to take the case. If the court declines to intervene, immigration authorities could gain more room to move forward, though Khalil’s lawyers may continue to pursue other pending challenges. The exact timing of Supreme Court action remains uncertain, and the court could handle the request through its emergency docket before deciding whether to accept a full appeal.

The case also arrives as federal courts continue to confront immigration enforcement disputes involving claims of political retaliation, improper detention and limits on judicial review. For immigrant-rights groups, Khalil’s case has become a warning about the government’s ability to use removal proceedings against lawful permanent residents whose speech is controversial. For the administration, the case is part of a wider assertion that immigration law gives the executive branch broad discretion over who may remain in the country.

Khalil’s legal team has said he cannot legally be detained at this stage and needs court protection while appeals continue. Advocacy groups including the Center for Constitutional Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union have backed his challenge, emphasizing free-speech and due-process arguments. Those groups are likely to continue portraying the case as a test of whether constitutional protections can be meaningfully enforced before immigration penalties become irreversible.

For now, Khalil’s next step is a Supreme Court filing seeking to pause the 3rd Circuit ruling and preserve his ability to contest the deportation effort from outside detention. The justices’ response could determine not only his immediate status but also the pace and posture of one of the country’s most closely watched immigration cases tied to campus activism.