The Trump administration notched another decisive victory in the courts this week, as a federal appeals court shut down an activist-backed attempt to override immigration law and undermine executive authority. In a closely watched case, a federal appellate panel ruled that a lower court judge had no legal authority to order the release of Mahmoud Khalil, a radical activist facing deportation over immigration fraud—firmly siding with President Trump’s enforcement-first approach to border security and the rule of law.
The ruling, handed down Thursday, January 15, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia, represents a clear rebuke of judicial overreach and a validation of Congress’s carefully constructed immigration framework. In a 2–1 decision, the panel ruled that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey simply lacked jurisdiction to intervene in Khalil’s removal proceedings.
The facts of the case are telling. Khalil, a legal permanent resident originally from Syria or Algeria, was ordered deported by an immigration judge in Louisiana in September 2025 after officials determined he failed to disclose key information on his green card application. Homeland Security Investigations arrested him earlier that year, in March, as part of a broader enforcement effort targeting immigration fraud and national security risks.
Despite that lawful deportation order, a separate federal judge in New Jersey stepped in and ordered Khalil’s release in June—an extraordinary move that immediately raised red flags among immigration experts and constitutional scholars. That release order is what the appellate court has now effectively dismantled.
In its opinion, the Third Circuit made clear that immigration law is not optional and cannot be rewritten by sympathetic judges. The panel ruled that the New Jersey court “lacked jurisdiction over Khalil’s removal proceedings” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), rendering its order invalid from the start.
“Our holdings vindicate essential principles of habeas and immigration law,” the majority wrote, emphasizing that Congress—not activist judges—sets the rules. The court noted that Khalil still has a lawful avenue to raise claims through a petition for review after a final removal order, undermining claims that his rights were somehow denied.
Predictably, the American Civil Liberties Union rushed to express outrage. The ACLU, which is representing Khalil, claimed the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and attempted to delay its impact through procedural maneuvers. Khalil himself echoed the activist talking points, insisting the decision would not “break our resolve.”
But the White House was unequivocal. In a statement to Fox News Digital, spokeswoman Abigail Jackson made clear that this case was never about politics—it was about fraud and accountability.
“Mahmoud Khalil was given the privilege of coming to America to study on a student visa he obtained by fraud and misrepresentation,” Jackson said. “As we have always maintained, the Executive Branch has the lawful authority to take actions that will protect the public and ensure the integrity of our immigration system.”
She added a blunt warning that reflects the administration’s zero-tolerance stance: “Those who lie to the government to obtain entry into the United States will face justice.”
Once again, the courts have affirmed a basic truth Washington too often forgets: immigration is a privilege, not a right—and the law still matters.
