The 3rd Circuit’s decision did more than clear the way for Mahmoud Khalil’s re-detention; it drew a hard line around the limits of judicial power. By ruling that a New Jersey district judge had no jurisdiction to interfere in a routine immigration case, the court reaffirmed that immigration disputes must run through the system Congress actually designed, not through handpicked forums sympathetic to a cause. That rebuke lands amid growing concern that some judges are less interested in applying the law than in engineering political outcomes from the bench.
For many Americans watching from the sidelines, the Khalil saga feels like a warning. If a simple green-card revocation can be stalled for months by a judge acting outside his lane, what else can be quietly derailed? The appeals court may have restored order in this case, but the deeper unease remains: a creeping sense that justice is becoming a battlefield, and the rules are only followed when they serve the right side.
