Key insights
-
1
Court said immigration proceedings are the proper channel for Khalil’s claims: The majority said the Immigration and Nationality Act requires Khalil’s claims to be raised through review of a final removal order rather than in district court.
-
2
Dissent focused on First Amendment review and detention harms: Judge Arianna Freeman said Khalil’s claims involve fundamental constitutional rights and wrote that he alleged and proved irreparable injuries during detention.
-
3
Ruling could limit a commonly used legal avenue: The ruling said to be capable of closing off a legal avenue many have used to challenge deportation orders if it stands.
Takeaways
The appeals court decision dismissing Mahmoud Khalil’s district-court challenge leaves his case to proceed through immigration review channels and creates a path for possible rearrest while appeals continue.
Topics
World & Politics Policy & Regulation Human Rights Migration Law & Public Safety Courts