Legal challenge mounts against US deportation order for Columbia student
New evidence suggests the Trump administration fast-tracked the removal proceedings against Mahmoud Khalil, raising questions about due process and judicial independence.
Lawyers for Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student and US permanent resident, have filed an appeal with an immigration appeals court seeking to reopen and terminate his deportation case. The legal team argues that the Trump administration secretly engineered the outcome of the proceedings against the pro-Palestine activist, citing new evidence of significant procedural abnormalities. The appeal follows a final order of removal issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals in April 2026.
The latest submission relies heavily on a report by The New York Times, which indicates that Khalil’s case was flagged as high priority before reaching the immigration board, suggesting it was fast-tracked. Documents cited in the report reveal that the court was instructed to treat Khalil’s case as if he were still in detention custody, a status that typically triggers expedited processing timelines. Khalil was released from detention in June 2025 following a federal judge’s order, though an appeals court later ruled the judge lacked jurisdiction over the matter.
Further complicating the procedural record, the New York Times report identified that three judges at the Board of Immigration Appeals recused themselves from the case. While the specific reasons for these recusals were not made public, experts familiar with the board’s procedures described the rate of recusals as extremely rare. The Board of Immigration Appeals operates under the Department of Justice within the executive branch, a structure that critics argue makes it more vulnerable to political interference than other federal courts.
The Trump administration has framed the deportation as part of a broader crackdown on anti-Semitism, yet no criminal charges have been laid against Khalil. US Secretary of State Marco invoked a rarely used provision of the Immigration and National Act to pursue deportation based on lawful beliefs and associations. The government later added a claim that Khalil had intentionally failed to disclose past work for the UN agency for Palestinian refugees on his immigration application, despite an FBI investigation into allegations of violence being closed without further action.
Khalil, who is married to a US citizen, maintains he has been unjustly targeted for his political views. His legal team contends that the administration has weaponised the immigration process to make an example of him. While authorities are currently barred from re-detaining or deporting him due to pending appeals regarding jurisdiction, the case has sparked debate over whether constitutional protections for free speech extend to permanent residents facing administrative removal.
