In a 2–1 decision issued Thursday, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a federal judge in New Jersey lacked jurisdiction to intervene in Khalil’s case before it had fully proceeded through the immigration court system. The panel emphasized that federal law generally requires individuals to exhaust administrative immigration proceedings before seeking relief in federal court.

The court did not rule on the central issue raised by Khalil’s legal team: whether the Trump administration’s effort to deport him based on his campus activism and political speech violates the U.S. Constitution. In a dissenting opinion, Judge Arianna Freeman argued that Khalil’s claims raise urgent constitutional concerns that should be addressed immediately, rather than deferred until after the immigration process is complete.

The decision prompted swift reactions from government officials. Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized media coverage of the case and said in a statement that individuals who "sympathize with terrorists” are not welcome in the United States. The U.S. Department of State said the appeals court ruling overturned what it described as an improper lower court decision and framed the outcome as a victory for the administration’s national security approach.

The Department of Homeland Security also welcomed the ruling. Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin called it "a vindication of the rule of law” and said the department would move to enforce Khalil’s removal order once legally permitted. She encouraged Khalil to leave the country voluntarily.

Khalil, a legal permanent resident, was arrested in March and spent approximately three months in an immigration detention facility in Louisiana. His detention meant he missed the birth of his first child, according to statements from his legal team. Federal authorities have accused him of leading activities "aligned to Hamas,” but they have not publicly presented evidence to support that claim and have not charged him with any criminal offense. Officials have also alleged that Khalil failed to disclose certain information on his green card application.

Khalil has strongly denied the allegations, calling them "baseless and ridiculous.” He has argued that his arrest and detention were a direct result of his pro-Palestinian activism and criticism of Israeli policy. In a statement released through the American Civil Liberties Union after the ruling, Khalil said he was "deeply disappointed” but pledged to continue pursuing all available legal avenues.

His attorney, Baher Azmy of the Center for Constitutional Rights, said the ruling conflicts with decisions from other federal courts and stressed that Khalil’s legal options remain open. These include asking the full 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider the case or appealing directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case now returns to the immigration court system, where authorities are considering whether Khalil could be deported to Algeria, where he claims citizenship through a relative, or to Syria, where he was born in a refugee camp. Khalil’s lawyers say he would face serious risk if sent to either country, a claim the government has not publicly addressed in detail.

The ruling comes amid broader national debate over immigration enforcement, free speech on university campuses, and the limits of government authority in cases involving political expression.