On July 21, 2026, a unanimous panel of the Second US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a lower court decision that had ordered the release of pro-Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi The Guardian.

The appeals court, ruling under docket number No. 25-1113, found that a Vermont federal judge overstepped his authority by intervening in Mahdawi's immigration case before it had fully moved through the Department of Justice's immigration court system. The Vermont judge had compared the government's effort to expel Mahdawi and other activists to McCarthy-era repression. The appeals court did not address the substance of Mahdawi's claim that he was unconstitutionally targeted for criticizing Israel The Guardian.

The Vermont district court case is captioned MAHDAWI v. TRUMP, et al., case number 2:25-cv-389. The Second Circuit heard oral arguments on September 30, 2025, following earlier district court proceedings including an April 23, 2025 status conference and an April 30, 2025 hearing on Mahdawi's Motion for Release Under Mapp v. Reno. Mahdawi was required to appear in person at these Vermont hearings.

Mahdawi, 35, is a Columbia University student designated as GS '25 and SIPA '27. Born in a refugee camp in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, he became a legal permanent resident of the US in 2015. In April 2025, immigration agents arrested Mahdawi during a citizenship interview. A Notice to Appear — a formal charging document in immigration proceedings — ordered him to appear before a DOJ immigration judge at a Louisiana detention facility on May 1, 2025. He was released two weeks later.

Mahdawi is appealing an order of removal (deportation) issued by the Board of Immigration Appeals, an administrative body that reviews immigration judge decisions. The American Civil Liberties Union represents him. ACLU attorneys stated that the government cannot detain or deport Mahdawi while the appeals process is underway The Guardian.

The Second Circuit's decision mirrors a separate appellate panel's earlier 2026 ruling against Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia classmate of Mahdawi. The Second Circuit is also expected to issue a separate ruling concerning Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University. At the September 2025 hearing, government attorneys argued against the release of both Mahdawi and Öztürk, who was detained by masked federal agents after co-signing an op-ed critical of Israel The Guardian.

The Second Circuit's reasoning is notable for what it does not address. By reversing solely on the scope of the lower court's authority — essentially saying the district judge jumped in before the immigration court process ran its course — the panel avoided evaluating the constitutional dimensions of Mahdawi's claim that his political speech triggered retaliatory enforcement. Think of it as a referee calling a procedural foul rather than reviewing whether a rule was broken on the merits. This preserves the administrative record as the primary venue for adjudicating the removal order while limiting federal district court oversight of ongoing immigration proceedings.

The broader context here is that the Second Circuit's approach keeps the constitutional questions about whether political speech can trigger deportation proceedings off the table for now. That leaves those questions unresolved for Mahdawi, Khalil, and potentially Öztürk. It also signals that federal appellate courts may prefer to let the immigration court system handle these cases before weighing in on the civil liberties issues they raise — a posture that could shape how similar cases unfold in the months ahead.