Court Rules Against Trump Admin In Khalil Case Transfer

Federal judge rejects Trump administration’s attempt to move Palestinian activist’s deportation case to Louisiana, allowing the controversial proceedings to stay in New Jersey.

Key Insights

U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled that Mahmoud Khalil’s deportation case will remain in New Jersey rather than being transferred to Louisiana.
The ruling marks the second failed attempt by the Trump administration to move the case to the conservative 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student with legal permanent resident status, is being detained for alleged foreign policy concerns stemming from his pro-Palestinian campus activism.
The decision only resolves the jurisdictional dispute, not the underlying legality of the deportation effort.
Khalil’s wife, who is expecting their child on April 28, has requested his release from Louisiana detention.

Court Blocks Jurisdictional Maneuver in High-Profile Deportation Case

A federal judge has dealt a significant setback to the Trump administration’s deportation efforts against Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil by ruling that his case must remain in New Jersey courts. U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz determined that the legal proceedings “can go forward in New Jersey because that is where the Petitioner was confined at that moment” when the petition was filed. This decision prevents the administration from transferring the case to Louisiana, where Khalil is currently detained, which would have placed the matter under the jurisdiction of the more conservative 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student with legal permanent resident status in the United States, was initially arrested in New York before being transferred to New Jersey and then Louisiana. The Trump administration has invoked a rarely-used statute allowing for deportation when a non-citizen’s “presence or activities” are deemed to have “serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” The case has become a focal point in the ongoing national debate about immigration enforcement priorities and the treatment of political activists.

A federal judge has ruled that the legal battle over Mahmoud Khalil's deportation should continue to play out in New Jersey, rejecting the Trump administration's bid to transfer the Columbia University protester's case to Louisiana. https://t.co/f38Z9XLvyL

— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 1, 2025

Legal Battle Highlights Broader Immigration Policy Conflicts

The ruling specifically addressed the jurisdictional question without weighing in on the merits of the deportation case itself. Judge Farbiarz rejected the government’s argument that the case should be transferred to Louisiana as “unpersuasive.” This decision allows Khalil’s attorneys to present their arguments for his release in a New Jersey federal court rather than starting anew in Louisiana.

“The Court’s jurisdiction is not defeated by the Petitioner having been moved to Louisiana,” wrote U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz in his ruling.

According to court documents, the government had argued for the transfer “for jurisdictional certainty,” but Khalil’s legal team characterized the effort as an attempt to place the case before judges more likely to favor the administration’s position. The case represents the first major arrest in what appears to be the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on student protesters involved in campus demonstrations related to the Israel-Hamas conflict. Critics have raised concerns about potential targeting of individuals based solely on political expression.

Personal Stakes and Family Impact

Beyond the legal and political dimensions, the case carries significant personal consequences for Khalil and his family. His wife, Dr. Noor Abdalla, expressed cautious optimism about the ruling while emphasizing the ongoing challenges ahead. Abdalla is currently expecting the couple’s first child, with a due date of April 28, and has requested her husband’s release from detention to be present for the birth. This human element adds emotional weight to a case that otherwise centers on constitutional questions and immigration enforcement policies.

Khalil’s attorney, Baher Azmy, has characterized the administration’s attempts to move the case as a “transparent attempt” to manipulate court jurisdiction to protect “unconstitutional” actions. The case highlights the intersection of immigration enforcement and First Amendment concerns, particularly as the administration has also reportedly revoked visas of foreign students involved in similar protests against U.S. military support for Israel. With the jurisdictional question now resolved, attention will turn to the substantive legal arguments regarding the government’s authority to deport a legal permanent resident based on political activities.