A federal appeals court on Tuesday vacated a Vermont federal judge’s order that had released Mohsen Mahdawi from immigration custody and sent the case back for dismissal, ruling the district court lacked jurisdiction under a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that channels removal‑related claims to the courts of appeals.
The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Section 242(b)(9) of the INA, codified at 8 U.S.C. §1252(b)(9), bars district courts from hearing challenges that “arise from any action taken . . . to remove an alien” and requires that such claims be raised in a petition for review of a final removal order in the appropriate circuit court.
Mahdawi, a lawful permanent resident and Columbia University student, had sued the federal government the day he was arrested in April 2025, seeking to vacate a determination by Secretary of State Marco Rubio that he posed potential adverse foreign‑policy consequences and alleging the government was targeting noncitizens for removal based on protected speech advocating for Palestinian rights.
A Vermont district judge ordered Mahdawi released pending review after finding he likely would prevail on his claim that the government had unlawfully targeted him for his speech, but the appeals panel said that conclusion improperly reached questions that must be raised through the statutory petition‑for‑review process.
The appeals court rejected arguments that Mahdawi’s challenge to his detention was separate from the underlying removal effort, saying his claims “raise legal questions challenging the government’s very basis for trying to remove . . . him” and are therefore channeled to the court of appeals under the statute.
The opinion cited Supreme Court and circuit precedent interpreting the INA’s jurisdictional “zipper” clause and discussed alternatives available inside the immigration system, including administrative hearings and the petition‑for‑review process — routes the court said preserve meaningful review and permit supplemental factfinding if necessary.
Court records show the immigration judge later terminated removal proceedings without prejudice in February 2026, but the Board of Immigration Appeals reinstated the proceedings and the government appealed; Mahdawi has since filed a petition for review in the First Circuit, according to filings in the appeals court docket.
Attorneys for Mahdawi included lawyers from the ACLU Foundation and private counsel; the government was represented by the Department of Justice and attorneys from the U.S. Attorney’s Office.
The 2nd Circuit’s decision vacated the district court’s April 30, 2025, release order and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss Mahdawi’s habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction.
Kishor Panthi
View More PostsKishor Panthi is the founder and editor-in-chief of Khasokhas and NepYork. He is the author of three books, “Kampan,” "UNTRANSLATABLE" and “Zero Mile.” He writes about social issues, immigration, and politics.
