Immigration Detention And Federal Jurisdiction
Mahmoud Khalil loses rehearing bid over detention claims
The Third Circuit refused on May 22 to revisit its earlier ruling, leaving Mahmoud Khalil’s detention and deportation fight where it was. A dissent said the court moved too fast to block review.
The Third Circuit denied Mahmoud Khalil’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc, leaving the earlier decision intact. Judges in dissent said the panel gave the detention bar too wide a reading and should have allowed federal review.
- The Third Circuit denied Mahmoud Khalil’s rehearing bid.
- Five judges voted to rehear the case en banc.
- A dissent said the court read the immigration jurisdiction bar too broadly.
- The ruling leaves the earlier decision in place for now.
- Mahmoud Khalil’s fight in federal court hit another wall on May 22, 2026, when the Third Circuit denied both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc
Mahmoud Khalil’s fight in federal court hit another wall on May 22, 2026, when the Third Circuit denied both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc. The denial leaves the court’s earlier ruling in place and keeps the jurisdiction dispute alive in the background of his detention and deportation battle.
That matters because the case is not just about one detainee. If the jurisdiction line stays narrow, noncitizens in detention may have less room to bring due-process claims in federal court while removal proceedings continue.
The dissent says the court drew the line too far
Judge Krause, joined by Judges Restrepo and Freeman, said the court read 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) too broadly. In their view, that statute channels some challenges into review of a final removal order, but it does not erase federal review for claims aimed at detention itself.
The dissent treats Khalil’s filing as a detention-specific challenge, not a routine objection to removal. Judge Freeman also filed a partial dissent on subject-matter jurisdiction in the underlying opinion, which underscores that the panel was not in lockstep on where federal courts should stop looking.
Why the split still matters
Five judges, Krause, Restrepo, Freeman, Montgomery-Reeves and Chung, voted for rehearing en banc. That did not change the outcome, but it showed the jurisdiction question had real support inside the court.
For immigration lawyers and detained noncitizens, the practical issue is simple: where a judge draws the line between detention and removal can decide whether a federal courthouse door opens at all. The rehearing bid failed, but the broader fight over that boundary is not going away.
The order was dated May 22, 2026.