The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit delivered the Trump administration a significant legal victory Tuesday, ruling that a lower court judge overstepped when she ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian green card holder, from immigration detention. This precedent reshapes how federal courts can intervene on behalf of detained immigrants facing removal.
What changed
A three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the lower court shouldn’t have ordered Mahdawi’s release because the case should have been resolved in the immigration court system, which is overseen by the US Department of Justice. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that federal law barred the courts from getting involved in the case at that stage.
Mahdawi, a lawful permanent resident originally from the West Bank who was pursuing graduate studies at Columbia University, was arrested at a USCIS facility in April 2025 by Homeland Security agents following his vocal participation in student demonstrations protesting military actions in Gaza, and removal proceedings were commenced against him. A U.S. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford had ordered Mahdawi’s release, ruling that he enjoyed the same free speech rights as US citizens.
In their unanimous decision, the panel found that the judge had overstepped his authority by intervening in Mahdawi’s case before it had moved fully through the immigration court system. While the ruling doesn’t order Mahdawi’s immediate re-arrest, it removes the order allowing him to be released.
Why it matters
This decision establishes binding precedent in the 2nd Circuit (New York, Connecticut, Vermont) that habeas corpus relief is off-limits for detained immigrants while their cases are pending in immigration court—even when constitutional concerns like free speech are raised.
For immigration practitioners, this means you cannot rely on federal court habeas petitions as a mechanism to secure the release of detained clients before their immigration court proceedings conclude. The government argued that detention relief through habeas corpus should be unavailable to those whose cases are moving through the immigration courts, while attorneys for the students countered that there was little hope in seeking relief from an immigration court system overseen by President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice. The court sided with the exhaustion doctrine.
The timing is critical: if your client is detained during a removal proceeding, you must pursue relief through the immigration judge (bond hearing, stay of removal, etc.) rather than filing a habeas petition in federal district court. The appellate court will likely dismiss a federal habeas suit as premature unless administrative remedies are truly exhausted.
Way forward
- Exhaust immigration court first: Before filing a federal habeas petition, complete all available administrative steps in immigration court, including bond hearings and appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals.
- Document First Amendment / constitutional issues: Preserve the record at the immigration court level that your client’s removal is based on protected speech or constitutionally suspect grounds—this may be necessary for later federal court review.
- Consider motion for en banc review or Supreme Court petition: If the full 2nd Circuit or Supreme Court reconsiders the exhaustion rule, earlier findings in the immigration court record will matter. Do not abandon constitutional arguments at the administrative level.
- Advise clients of timeline risk: Immigration detention can continue for months or years during court proceedings. Exhaust administrative remedies promptly to preserve any federal court options that might later become available.
Disclaimer
This article is published by Fola Editorial, a software company providing plain-English summaries of immigration law and policy—we are not a law firm and this is not legal advice. Immigration and removal law is complex, and consequences are severe. You must consult a licensed immigration attorney about your specific situation. Federal court precedent can change without notice, and this summary reflects the state of law as of its publication date. Always verify current law against the primary source materials linked above and consult authoritative agency guidance before making filing or litigation decisions.