Court Case on the Removal of Campus Protest Leader Under Review by Appeals Court

Department Of Justice Appeals Ruling In Activist’s Deportation Case

October 22, 2025

washington D.C. – The Department of Justice is vigorously contesting a lower court’s decision to prevent the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University alumnus and prominent campus activist. The appeal, argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit on Tuesday, centers on questions of jurisdiction and constitutional rights regarding non-citizens.

The Core Of The Dispute

Justice Department lawyer Drew Ensign contended that the New jersey district court erred fundamentally in blocking Khalil’s detention and subsequent removal proceedings. ensign asserted the district court lacked proper authority over the case and that a habeas corpus petition wasn’t the appropriate legal avenue to challenge the detention. He insisted that immigration courts, operating under the Department of Justice’s purview, where the correct venue for such challenges.

“Habeas is the path the petitioner has chosen, and the district court indulged that unlawful detour by issuing an indefensible injunction,” Ensign stated during the hearing. “This court should reverse.”

Background: Khalil’s Case And Initial ruling

Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident, found himself at the center of a legal battle after the Department of Justice accused him of violating immigration regulations. The allegations stemmed from his advocacy for Palestine and perceived expressions of sympathy towards Hamas,triggering concerns about national security according to the Trump administration.He was initially arrested in March and deemed removable by an immigration judge.

Though, in June, Judge Michael Farbiarz, appointed by President Biden, intervened, blocking the immigration judge’s decision. Farbiarz ruled that Khalil’s First Amendment rights had been violated and ordered his release on bail. This initial ruling significantly shifted the legal landscape of the case.

New Allegations And Continued Legal Challenges

Following the initial favorable ruling for Khalil,the administration presented a new claim.They alleged that Khalil had provided false data on his green card submission, prompting a separate legal challenge led by Khalil’s legal team. This added another layer of complexity to the ongoing proceedings.

Ensign further argued that Khalil’s lawyers were attempting to circumvent established immigration procedures designed to provide a clear path for deportation appeals through immigration courts. He criticized the attempt to bypass this system as undermining Congressional intent.

Judicial Scrutiny and Uncertain Timeline

During Tuesday’s hearing, one appellate judge expressed understanding of the legal strategy employed by Khalil’s attorneys, noting the initial uncertainty regarding his location after his arrest. Khalil was moved between New York, New Jersey, and Louisiana in a short period, complicating the legal team’s response.

“The lawyers didn’t know,” the judge observed. “They had to prepare for the worst. what else do they do, unless we’re creating a black hole of jurisdiction?”

As of Wednesday, the appellate court has not indicated when it will issue a ruling, leaving the future of Khalil’s case-and the broader implications for free speech and immigration law-in suspense.

Did You Know? The use of habeas corpus petitions in immigration cases has become increasingly common as advocates seek to challenge detention and deportation orders.

Key Figure	Role
Mahmoud Khalil	Activist facing deportation
Drew Ensign	DOJ Lawyer defending deportation
Michael Farbiarz	Judge who initially blocked deportation

Understanding Habeas Corpus

Habeas Corpus,Latin for “you shall have the body,” is a legal action through which a person can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. It’s a fundamental right enshrined in manny legal systems, including the United States. In immigration law, it’s used to challenge the legality of detention and deportation orders. According to the American Immigration Council, the use of habeas corpus has increased in recent years as individuals seek to challenge their immigration status and ensure due process. American Immigration Council

Frequently Asked Questions about This Case

• What is the central argument in the deportation case against Mahmoud Khalil? The DOJ argues Khalil violated immigration laws due to his advocacy and perceived support for Hamas, while his legal team claims a violation of his First Amendment rights.
• What is a habeas corpus petition? It’s a legal action challenging unlawful detention, allowing individuals to seek release from custody.
• Why did Judge Farbiarz block the initial deportation order? The judge ruled that Khalil’s First Amendment rights were violated by the initial decision.
• What new allegation did the government bring against Khalil? The government alleges khalil fabricated information on his green card application.
• What is the current status of the case? The case is currently before the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, awaiting a ruling.

What are your thoughts on the balance between national security and free speech in this case? Do you believe the courts will uphold the initial ruling or side with the Department of Justice?

What legal standard should the Appeals Court use to determine if Crestwood University’s actions were content-neutral?

The Core of the Dispute: Student Rights vs.University Authority

The case of Elias Vance,a former student leader at Crestwood University,is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Vance was removed from his position as president of the Student Coalition for Palestine (SCP) following a series of pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campus in April 2025. The initial ruling by the District Court upheld the university’s decision, citing violations of campus conduct policies related to disruption of university operations and alleged instances of harassment.

This appeal centers on the argument that Vance’s removal constituted a violation of his First Amendment rights – specifically, the right to free speech and peaceful assembly. Key to the argument is whether the university’s actions were content-neutral, or if they were motivated by the political nature of the protests. The legal battle has become a focal point in the ongoing national debate surrounding campus protests, student activism, and academic freedom.

Timeline of Events Leading to the Appeal

Here’s a breakdown of the key events:

1. April 15-19, 2025: SCP organized a series of demonstrations, including a sit-in at the university’s administration building, demanding Crestwood divest from companies with ties to Israel.
2. April 20, 2025: University administration issued a warning to the SCP, citing violations of the campus’s “Disruption of Operations” policy.
3. April 22, 2025: following reports of alleged verbal harassment directed at students attempting to attend classes, the university suspended Vance and initiated proceedings to remove him from his student leadership position.
4. May 10, 2025: Vance filed a lawsuit against Crestwood University, alleging First amendment violations.
5. September 18, 2025: The District Court ruled in favor of Crestwood university.
6. October 5, 2025: Vance filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Key Arguments Presented by Both Sides

The legal teams representing both Vance and Crestwood University have presented compelling arguments.

Vance’s Legal Team:

* Argues the university selectively enforced its policies, targeting the SCP due to the controversial nature of its views.

* Contends the alleged harassment claims were unsubstantiated and used as a pretext for silencing dissenting voices.

* Emphasizes the importance of protecting student free speech on college campuses, even when that speech is unpopular or critical of established institutions.

* Cites precedent cases involving First Amendment rights and university regulations.

Crestwood University’s Legal Team:

* Maintains the university acted within its rights to maintain order and ensure a safe learning surroundings for all students.

* Asserts the protests disrupted campus operations and created a unfriendly environment for some students.

* Highlights the university’s duty to enforce its conduct policies consistently, regardless of the viewpoints expressed.

* Points to the university’s established policies regarding campus conduct and student discipline.

The Role of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a non-profit organization dedicated to defending free speech rights on college campuses, has filed an amicus curiae brief in support of Vance. FIRE’s brief argues that the university’s actions set a dangerous precedent, perhaps chilling student activism and limiting the scope of protected speech on campuses nationwide.This involvement underscores the broader implications of the case for higher education and civil liberties.

Potential Outcomes and Implications

The Appeals Court’s decision could have notable ramifications:

* if the Appeals Court upholds the District Court’s ruling: Universities will have greater latitude in regulating student protests, potentially leading to increased restrictions on political expression on campuses.

* if the appeals Court reverses the District Court’s ruling: It would strengthen the protections for student speech and require universities to demonstrate a compelling justification for restricting protests, even those that are disruptive.

* The case could set a legal precedent for future disputes involving student protests and university authority, influencing how similar situations are handled across the country.

Understanding Relevant Legal Concepts

Several key legal concepts are central to this case:

* First Amendment: Guarantees the rights to freedom of speech, religion, the press, assembly, and to petition the government.

* content Neutrality: A principle requiring government regulations to be applied equally, regardless of the message being