Mahdawi v. Trump (detention appeal, CA)
Case Overview
The government appealed Judge Crawford's order requiring the release of Mohsen Mahdawi. On July 21, 2026, a unanimous Second Circuit panel (Livingston, Nardini, Menashi) vacated the district court's release order and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) channels Mahdawi's claims to the administrative process, depriving the district court of subject-matter jurisdiction to order his release.
The Facts
Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian LPR who organized pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia, appeared at a Vermont USCIS office for a naturalization interview in April 2025. Federal agents detained him on the spot and initiated deportation proceedings based on Secretary of State Marco Rubio's determination that Mahdawi's presence or activities would have serious adverse foreign policy consequences. District Judge Geoffrey Crawford ordered his release, finding he would likely succeed in showing the government unlawfully targeted him based on First Amendment protected activity. The government appealed, arguing the district court lacked jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9).
The Application
The Second Circuit held that district courts lack jurisdiction to review removal-related claims prior to a final order of removal. Mahdawi challenged his removal on First Amendment grounds, arguing the government targeted him for his pro-Palestinian speech at Columbia. The court concluded that because his constitutional claims attack the basis for initiating removal proceedings, they 'raise legal questions challenging the government's very basis for trying to remove' him (Khalil v. President, 164 F.4th at 274). Section 1252(b)(9) channels such claims exclusively to petition for review of a final removal order in the courts of appeals. The ruling leaves Mahdawi with the administrative process: a Joseph hearing before an immigration judge to challenge whether he properly falls within a mandatory detention category, followed if removal is ordered by a petition for review in the First Circuit where he can raise his constitutional challenges.
The Conclusion
The Second Circuit unanimously (Livingston, Nardini, Menashi) vacated the district court's release order and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Mahdawi's First and Fifth Amendment claims challenging his detention necessarily challenge the government's decision to initiate removal proceedings, and thus raise 'legal questions challenging the government's very basis for trying to remove' him. Section 1252(b)(9) channels these claims to the administrative process, not federal district court. Menashi concurred separately, emphasizing that even if Mahdawi had framed his petition as a pure detention challenge, § 1226(e) separately bars federal courts from reviewing the Attorney General's discretionary detention decisions.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support