A New Jersey-based federal judge on Tuesday declined the Trump administration’s request to transfer pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil’s immigration detention challenge to Louisiana, where is he is being held.
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled he has jurisdiction over Khalil’s case because the Columbia University graduate and legal permanent resident was detained in New Jersey when his lawyer filed the challenge.
“The case as filed can go forward only here. The other 93 districts, where the Petitioner was nowhere to be found, are out of the question,” Farbiarz, an appointee of former President Biden, wrote in his 67-page ruling.
Immigration authorities arrested Khalil, a student negotiator in the recent pro-Palestinian demonstrations at Columbia, last month. The Trump administration seeks to revoke his green card over accusations he is “pro-Hamas” and engaged in “pro-terrorist,” antisemitic activity.
Khalil’s case has gained national attention as the administration cites a rarely used immigration law provision that makes someone deportable if the secretary of State determines their continued presence poses serious adverse foreign policy consequences. The administration has since begun using the provision for other students, too.
Just before 5 a.m. EDT on March 9, Khalil’s legal team challenged his detention in New York by filing a federal habeas petition. A judge quickly blocked officials from deporting Khalil but later transferred the case to New Jersey after finding that’s where he was detained when the petition was filed.
The Trump administration has moved Khalil to Louisiana and has since sought to transfer his legal challenge there. Such a trajectory would route any appeals through the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, regarded as the most conservative federal appeals court in the country.
“This Court’s jurisdiction is not undone because the Petitioner is no longer in New Jersey,” Farbiarz wrote in his ruling, rejecting the request.
The judge noted that such decisions are normally unappealable, but he suggested the unusual nature of the case may merit an exception in this case. He asked the parties to submit their views in writing on the issue.
