“Confirmed Judges, Confirmed Fears” is a blog series documenting the harmful impact of President Trump’s judges on Americans’ rights and liberties. It includes judges nominated in both his first and second terms.
What’s at stake in this case?
The federal government is seeking to deport an immigrant who is a permanent legal resident and an advocate for Palestinian rights.
What happened in this case?
ICE arrested, detained, and sought to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a legal permanent resident in the US and a citizen of Algeria, who is a Columbia graduate student and is involved in advocacy for Palestinian rights. He contended the government was retaliating against him for his advocacy and filed suit in federal court. A federal district court judge issued an injunction against the government and ordered his release.
While Khalil’s case was pending, however, ICE sent him to Louisiana, where deportation proceedings began. It also appealed the injunction to the Third Circuit, where the case was heard by Trump judge Stephanos Bibas, George W. Bush judge Thomas Hardiman, and Biden judge Arianna Freeman. Bibas and Hardiman issued a 2-1 decision in January 2026, to which Freeman dissented, that reversed the lower court injunction in Khalil’s favor and called for the deportation proceedings to continue in Khalil v President.
How did Trump judge Bibas rule?
Judge Bibas wrote an opinion, joined by Judge Hardiman, that reversed the lower court. They contended that the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stripped district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over such immigration-related claims. He could thus raise those claims only after a final order of removal, which has not been issued, at least as of yet.
What did Judge Freeman say in dissent?
Judge Freeman explained that according to past precedent, the INA’s jurisdiction stripping properly occurs only after a final order of removal has been issued. Until then, she went on, executive branch conduct is “subject to judicial review” of claims for violation of legal and constitutional rights leading to irreparable injury during the pendency of the case and that, therefore, the lower court injunction could well be proper. “The relevant question” according to Judge Freeman is not whether the claimant is entitled to “review” of the legal and factual questions at a later point, but “whether the alleged harms can be remedied later.” “Precedent and principles of statutory interpretation,” she wrote, lead to the determination that it is “most unlikely” that Congress sought to foreclose all “meaningful judicial review” over Khalil’s claims, as Bibas’ decision does.
Why is the result harmful?
The decision by Trump judge Bibas clearly harms Mahamoud Khalil and his efforts to get justice for the retaliation that he contends that he suffered. The ruling also sets a troubling precedent concerning such immigration issues, at least in the Third Circuit, including New Jersey, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. The ruling also illustrates the importance of our federal courts to health, welfare and justice and the significance of having fair-minded judges on the federal bench.