The topic of “Mahmoud Khalil” is currently trending due to a series of significant legal developments surrounding his case. Recently, an appeals court ruling has attracted attention, as it overturned a previous decision that had freed Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist. This legal decision raises questions about the implications for his activism and broader political issues, prompting increased public interest and searches for more information.
Additionally, a noteworthy event reported by AP News involved the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, who had played a crucial role in protests at Columbia University. This incident has drawn considerable media coverage, particularly in the context of ongoing discussions regarding immigration enforcement and political activism, leading to a spike in search activity.
The interplay of these legal actions, particularly the appeals court’s ruling and the arrest, contributes to the heightened interest in Mahmoud Khalil. As more details emerge about his situation and its implications for similar activists, the volume of searches reflects a growing public curiosity surrounding the consequences of such legal battles on activism and immigrant rights.
Watch the Moment
Internet Reacts
T
Breaking News: An appeals court reopened the possibility that Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian protester jailed for months by the Trump administration, could be detained as the U.S. sought to deport him. You can read the [full article for free here](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/15/nyregion/mahmoud-khalil-detention.html?unlocked_article_code=1.ElA.L0ZC.h-eEXCai-WZ8&smid=re-nytimes), even without an NYT subscription.
E
Bush and Trump judges are going to be with us for a long time
C
Trump judges are the real problem. But hey, thanks to all those people who voted third party or stayed home in 2016.
A
And how. Bush judges vote against the Trump administration. Trump’s [“have voted 133 to 12 in his favor”](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/11/us/politics/trumps-appeals-court-judges.html)
H
Idk about Bush (too young back then) but Trump wasn’t up against anyone that would give us better judges. Unless you count Bernie Edit – I forgot Harris. She’d give us bad judges but I can see how it’s dubious to say as bad as Trump’s. My bad
A
So incredibly wrong it begs doubt you’re a real person. If Clinton was elected we’d still have Roe V Wade.
E
No.
M
This is wrong
V
It’s not just wrong, it’s delusional. Trump appoints tons of people whose only qualifications are their willingness to publicly gargle his balls. Even judges with wildly different political stances will end up ruling the “right” way 95% of the time when the answer is straightforwardly derived from the law. We usually only hear about controversial cases but those are (or at least have been) a small minority. That commenter seems to have the same misapprehension that Trump does about what the role of a judge is supposed to be. They’re explicitly not supposed to flaunt existing law and precedent to set a political agenda. This is exactly why Trump’s appointees are so dangerous (and much more so than Bush’s), because they’re by and large perfectly willing to throw all of that out in order to serve the authoritarian regime.
H
Nope, Trump was up against Clinton and then Biden
H
What makes you think either of them would install similarly bad or worse judges than Trump has?
B
and then Harris.
H
Oh yeah. She might have given us better judges actually
R
What’s the thought process to say she would have but Clinton wouldn’t have? Curious what the impressions of folks who maybe don’t follow this as closely as me* are. *(i.e. way too much)
M
Yeah I know who ran for president. Even the worst democrats nominate much better judges than the Trump admin has.
D
Within the Clinton White House, Hillary Clinton was the strongest advocate for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s elevation to the Supreme Court, but sure, let’s pretend she’d be appointing Federalist Society ghouls if she became President. Biden’s Federal judge selections were most definitely liberal. He appointed more judges with backgrounds as civil rights lawyers or public defenders than any President in history.
H
Ginsburg is not a good judge. “Liberal” is not a good thing, it’s basically just a Republican with a blue tie. I still see no evidence Trump’s judges could possibly be worse than Hillary’s
L
>I still see no evidence Trump’s judges could possibly be worse than Hillary’s People need to stop responding to lazy engagement bait from month old accounts.
H
Nah, they’ll be fine
[
[deleted]
H
You’re incorrect
D
So it looks like I am the only one who bothered to read the article. All sides are just putting up political view. It was a 2-1 complex procedural issue that I don’t understand. Here is what I think is the most important part. My opinion is, I dunno. Im not a lawyer. I really don’t understand the complexities. All we get explained to us from all sides are political reason for and against. >In a split opinion, two of the three judges on the appeals court, Thomas Hardiman and Stephanos Bibas, found that the New Jersey district judge who oversaw Mr. Khalil’s petition for release was not the proper authority to have ruled on it. The matter should have initially been addressed by an immigration court, the majority said.
B
Agree or disagree with his case, the matter of fact is that he failed to disclose involvement in specific organizations on his application. I’m not glazing the current administration but the action of purposely omitting involvement in certain organizations that may disqualify one from obtaining permanent residency is a serious issue.
D
that also has nothing to do with the article. the article is strictly a procedural issue about whether the correct judge threw the case out. thats it.
C
how do you know he purposely omitted anything? And obviously still selective enforcement. Musk and Melania are both clearly visa fraud cases… this guy is obviously being targeted because of his views on israel.
S
This is inherently political. His arrest was a transparent violation of the First Amendment and those two judges (a Trump appointee and Bush appointee) just ruled that the case has to go back to the same DHS procedure that committed the initial violation. Immigration courts and judges are not judicial at all. They are just part of DHS. It’s appalling that they would send this back to DHS. Edit: you blocked me and you didn’t even read my comment correctly. Nice. I know this is an appeals court ruling. The ruling sends the case back to immigration “court”, which is just giving DHS another chance to commit the same violations. There will be an appeal and hopefully the panel will be reversed en banc but it shouldn’t be necessary.
D
the article is about an appeals court ruling. that no one including you want to read. the ruling is not from an immigration judge. which you would know if you bothered to read the article. you are just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Y
They’re arguing because they’re ignorant and unwilling to do basic fact checking for their argument.
M
Really telling how you have to lie to support your bullshit.
I
The organisation he was a spokesman for harassed my cousin for being Jewish. Hope he gets kicked out.
P
They love the law but only on their side, I think there are too many lawyers graduated and the internet lawyers Always the ones that plays the victim are worse that the one they are accusing
B
Not sure who is they but glass houses if you know what I mean
P
He’s been really quiet on iran
R
Iran is a big checkmate for the free Palestine folks
F
It’s pretty hilarious being proven right about all these people from the last 2 years. It’s sad but vindicating seeing how performative they are
A
Just look at the mayor’s pal Hasan Piker cackling and mocking the thousands and thousands of killed Iranians
P
2+ years of being lectured by these people about human rights and genocide and all those buzzwords and then Hasan is doing a racist Iranian accent laughing about 12,000 protestors slaughtered over the weekend.
B
Damn, could you link me to him doing this?
A
https://xcancel.com/i/status/2011288587170648540
T
You must mean all the free Palestine folks posting in support of the Iranian people and objecting to US and Israeli intervention. This isn’t a game of chess, it’s about liberating oppressed people from all forms of oppression, and if you look at true activists for Palestinian liberation you’ll find we are remarkably consistent in our messaging and mission. Whether you agree with us or not, we are genuine in our beliefs. Are you?
D
The Iranian people are asking for help. Its impossible for them to overthrow this regime without outside aid. 12,000+ have been murdered.
T
I’d love to see the evidence that the large numbers of Iranians, in Iran, are asking for American and Israel to bomb them, overthrow their government, and then plunge them into worse conditions. I’d love to see evidence that even a majority of the protesters advocate for this. You’re attributing a belief to an entire group of people. This simply doesn’t work. You’re also disregarding the fact that it is American interventionism is the reason Iran is in this situation. If the U.S. hadn’t installed the Shah, just as bad as the current regime if not worse, the conditions in Iran wouldn’t have called for revolution, without the conditions being so bad we never would have had the pendulum swing to the other extreme, the current religious extremist regime. In addition, all countries affected by western colonialism and imperialism and interventionism end up far worse off than before. It is absolutely possible to win this fight without interventionism, AND there is a difference between aid and interventionism. The U.S. and Israel want to intervene because they want to control the region NOT to liberate Iranians. If the US truly wanted to liberate Iranians I would absolutely support aid, even military aid. ANYWAY. At the end of the day you’re disregarding my larger point. I’m not saying I’m objectively right. In fact I’m saying whether we are right or wrong, we are consistent in our beliefs. We support liberation movements and oppose imperialist colonialist interventionist countries like the U.S. and like Israel. Again. You can think we are idiots. You can think we are wrong. We can even have an argument about that. But all I mean to say here is, we are not just making stuff up. We are consistent in our belief and our movements.
D
The Shah is not remotely as bad as the current regime. You ever look at pictures of iranian women in the 70s? They wore regular clothing. now they are murdered for showing their hair. Its the death penalty for deciding you dont want to be muslim. They waste their oil money in their idiotic crusade to destroy Israel so the economy is awful. They are looking at famine in 10 years due to the mismanagement of water. This is just some america hater, so you love the Ayatollah. The US and Israel want to intervene because Iran has been in a state of war with israel since 1979 and sole foreign policy purpose is the destruction of Israel. Iran is also developing nuclear weapons which means the rest of the region will go nuclear also. You jsut hate the US and love anyone else who opposes the US. Even if its to the detriment of its people. I bet you cheered on the Taliban and considered that a supreme victory over the US too right? Go look at how they treat women.
T
I’m done going back and forth on this. This is the last I have to say. I’ve explained that yes I hate America, and that I hate Ayatollah. I’m not lying about this and I’m not misleading anyone on this. I truly hate both. If you can’t believe there can be this kind of nuance I’m not sure why I should believe a single thing you say. Regardless. I’m aware of the state of Iran. Like I’ve said that is why I support the current revolution. Your entire argument is full of straw mans and what abouts. There is no reason why you should be any less propagandized than I am. I’ve done my research I’ve read my history and I’ve listened to Iranians. If you think I’ve reached the wrong conclusions fine. But I reject your attempts to invalidate my perspective because you can’t understand the nuance of the situation.
S
i’m with you. too many people don’t get that folks support an iran that is free of either ayatollah or american puppet / shah rulership
M
Really telling how you have to lie to support your bullshit.
T
I’m not lying my friend. I’m telling you truly and honestly what I believe. You can believe things that are wrong. In fact it is my belief that you are wrong, and yet it is still valid for it to be your belief nonetheless.
M
Again, really telling how you have to lie to support your bullshit.
T
And again, it’s really telling how much of an idiot you are that you can’t believe someone could believe something different than you.
M
No need to get snippy just because you were caught lying.
Additional Sources:
New Jersey Monitor – Judges overturn ruling that freed pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil
