The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued a nuanced ruling Wednesday in *Mahmoud Khalil v. President United States of America*, addressing complex jurisdictional questions that arise when immigration detainees are transferred between facilities while challenging their detention and removal proceedings.
The case involved Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who filed a habeas corpus petition challenging three significant government actions: his potential removal from the United States, his continued detention, and intervention in his immigration court proceedings. The Third Circuit's per curiam opinion, argued Oct. 21, 2025, and filed Jan. 15, 2026, resolved competing claims about which court had authority to hear Khalil's case.
The appellate court addressed two central jurisdictional questions that have significant implications for immigration law practice. First, the court examined whether the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey had proper habeas corpus jurisdiction over Khalil's petition, despite his initial detention in New York. Second, the court considered whether the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) stripped the district court of subject matter jurisdiction entirely.
Regarding habeas jurisdiction, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court's authority to hear the case. The court held that although Khalil was initially detained in New York, immigration officials had transferred him to New Jersey by the time his attorney filed the habeas petition. This transfer was crucial to the court's analysis.
"Because the lawyer could have filed his petition in New Jersey then, the New York court's transfer of the case to New Jersey was effective," the court wrote. The opinion emphasized that proper habeas jurisdiction depends on where the petitioner is detained at the time of filing, not where detention initially began.
The court also addressed technical requirements under federal habeas corpus law. Khalil's Second Amended Petition named the warden of the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility as respondent, satisfying the federal habeas statute's requirement that petitioners name their immediate custodian. The court found this amendment "related back" to Khalil's original filing, preserving the validity of his petition despite the change in named respondents.
However, the Third Circuit reached a different conclusion on the second jurisdictional question. The court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act stripped the New Jersey District Court of subject matter jurisdiction over Khalil's claims. This ruling reflects the complex interplay between general federal court jurisdiction and specialized immigration law procedures.
The court explained that the INA channels "judicial review of all questions of law... arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States" into a single petition for review filed with a federal court of appeals. This statutory framework, according to the Third Circuit, precluded the district court from exercising jurisdiction over immigration-related claims, even when properly brought as habeas corpus petitions.
The case highlights ongoing tensions in immigration law between traditional habeas corpus protections and specialized immigration review procedures. Lawful permanent residents like Khalil occupy a unique position in immigration law, possessing stronger constitutional protections than non-residents while still subject to removal proceedings under certain circumstances.
The ruling appears to create a practical paradox for immigration attorneys: while the court confirmed that proper venue can be established for habeas petitions when detainees are transferred between facilities, the same court may lack substantive authority to grant relief under immigration law's specialized review procedures.
The Third Circuit panel consisted of Circuit Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Stephanos Bibas, and Arianna J. Freeman. The case arose from proceedings before District Judge Michael E. Farbiarz in the District of New Jersey.
Khalil's case involved multiple government defendants, including the President of the United States, the Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement's New York Field Office, the warden of the Elizabeth Contract Detention Facility, the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
The decision comes at a time when immigration detention and removal proceedings face increased scrutiny from federal courts. The jurisdictional questions resolved in *Khalil* affect how attorneys can challenge immigration detention and where such challenges may be filed.
For immigration practitioners, the ruling provides important guidance on venue requirements for habeas petitions involving transferred detainees. The decision confirms that jurisdiction follows the detainee's current location rather than initial detention site, potentially simplifying venue decisions for attorneys representing clients moved between facilities.
The case also underscores the continuing complexity of immigration law's relationship with general federal jurisdiction. While the court preserved habeas corpus protections in theory, the INA's specialized review procedures may limit practical relief available through traditional habeas petitions.
The Third Circuit's ruling will likely influence how similar cases are filed and litigated across the circuit, which includes Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware, and the Virgin Islands. The decision may also inform ongoing debates about immigration law reform and the balance between specialized immigration procedures and traditional constitutional protections.