Third Circuit Reminds Biden Judge That Immigration Law Still Means Something

When the System Actually Works

Here’s something you don’t see every day: the federal appeals process doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals just vacated a lower court’s brazen attempt to block the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, a Syrian-born green card holder who thought leading pro-Hamas activities at Columbia University was somehow compatible with remaining in America.

Judge Michael Farbiarz, a Biden appointee sitting in New Jersey, had decided that his courtroom was the appropriate venue to prevent federal authorities from removing someone flagged as a national security threat. He didn’t just hear a habeas petition. He went full activist, ordering Khalil’s release from custody and meddling in immigration court proceedings that weren’t his to touch.

The Third Circuit wasn’t having it.

In a 2-1 decision that should’ve been unanimous, the appeals panel explained something that apparently needed explaining: federal district courts don’t get to run immigration policy. The Immigration and Nationality Act channels all judicial review of removal actions through federal courts of appeals, not through district judges with inflated senses of their own authority.

You know what’s remarkable about this case? It’s not just about one foreign activist who made terrible choices about which terrorist organizations to support. It’s about whether we still have a functional system where laws mean what they say and courts stay in their lanes.

The Law Is Pretty Clear on This

Judge Thomas Hardiman and Judge Stephanos Bibas wrote for the majority, and their logic is straightforward. Yes, Farbiarz had jurisdiction over the habeas petition itself since Khalil was physically detained in New Jersey. But having jurisdiction over one narrow question doesn’t give you carte blanche to take over an entire immigration case.

Congress designed the INA with a specific structure. Immigration cases follow a particular path, and that path leads to federal appeals courts, not to district judges who want to make policy from the bench. This isn’t complicated. The statute strips district courts of subject matter jurisdiction over these removal proceedings.

“Our holdings vindicate essential principles of habeas and immigration law,” the majority wrote. They’re being diplomatic. What they’re really saying is that Judge Farbiarz overstepped so badly that they had to remind him how federal jurisdiction actually works.

The scheme Congress created gives people like Khalil plenty of opportunity to raise their claims. He can file a petition for review of a final removal order. He gets his day in court. He just doesn’t get to forum shop his way into a friendly district court that’ll block lawful deportation proceedings.

About That Dissent

Judge Arianna Freeman, another Biden appointee, dissented. She agreed that Farbiarz had habeas jurisdiction but thought he also had subject matter jurisdiction to do everything he did.

Her reasoning? Well, she believes that since no provision of the INA explicitly stripped the district court of jurisdiction in this specific scenario, Farbiarz was free to grant injunctive relief and meddle however he pleased.

That’s not how jurisdiction stripping works, and the majority was right to reject this expansive view. If we accepted Freeman’s logic, every immigration case could get hijacked by a sympathetic district judge somewhere. The carefully designed appellate review process Congress created would become meaningless.

Why This Matters Beyond One Case

Margot Cleveland at The Federalist nailed it when she pointed out that this ruling should short circuit several other cases where district courts are meddling in immigration matters beyond their authority. We’ve seen this pattern repeatedly: activist judges treating immigration law like a suggestion rather than a mandate.

The Trump administration has been fighting these battles in courts across the country. Judges issue nationwide injunctions blocking enforcement of immigration law. They invent new rights for foreign nationals. They substitute their policy preferences for those of elected officials and the agencies charged with enforcing our laws.

This Third Circuit decision pushes back on that trend. It reminds lower courts that immigration law has a structure, and that structure exists for good reasons.

Think about what Judge Farbiarz tried to do here. Federal authorities detained someone they determined was leading activities aligned with Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. They concluded he posed a threat to national security and foreign policy. And a district judge decided he knew better than immigration authorities about who should stay in America.

That’s not judicial review. That’s judicial supremacy run amok.

The Bigger Picture on Immigration Enforcement

Cases like this highlight why immigration enforcement has become such a mess. It’s not just about resources or border security. It’s about whether our government can actually enforce the laws on the books without judges second-guessing every decision.

Khalil wasn’t some sympathetic dreamer brought here as a child. He’s a Syrian-born adult who chose to align himself with a terrorist organization while enjoying the benefits of living in America. The idea that deporting him somehow violates his rights is absurd.

The First Amendment protects a lot of speech, but it doesn’t protect foreign nationals from the consequences of supporting designated terrorist organizations. That’s not a close call. That’s not even a hard case. Yet here we are, fighting through multiple levels of federal courts to remove someone who should’ve been on a plane months ago.

This is what happens when judges forget that being on the bench doesn’t make them philosopher kings. They’re supposed to apply the law, not rewrite it to match their preferred policy outcomes.

What Happens Next

The Third Circuit vacated Farbiarz’s orders and sent the case back with instructions to dismiss Khalil’s habeas petition. That should be the end of it, but we all know how these things go. There’ll be more legal maneuvering, more delays, more attempts to find another sympathetic judge somewhere.

The good news is that this ruling establishes clear precedent in the Third Circuit. District courts there now know they can’t interfere with immigration proceedings the way Farbiarz tried to do. That’s progress.

The better news is that this administration is actually willing to fight these battles instead of rolling over every time a district judge issues an injunction. Previous administrations treated judicial overreach as inevitable. This one treats it as something to be challenged and corrected.

That’s how you restore the rule of law. Not by playing nice with judges who think they run the country, but by appealing their bad decisions and getting them reversed.