The Trump administration’s push to deport pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil landed before a Philly-based appeals court

President Donald Trump’s administration on Tuesday asked a federal appeals court in Philadelphia to overturn an order that has, for the moment, blocked authorities from deporting pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil — the latest development in a complex legal saga that began when the administration was seeking to crack down on anti-Israeli college campus protests earlier this year.

During a hearing before a three-judge panel in a Center City courtroom, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign said the earlier order, issued by a federal judge in New Jersey, was “indefensible” for several reasons — including that it was issued in the wrong jurisdiction, and that it was effectively helping Khalil’s lawyers improperly “fragment” the various legal proceedings against him and seek venues that might issue favorable rulings.

Khalil’s attorneys, however, said the judges should uphold the lower court’s ruling because the government had illegally targeted the 30-year-old for removal over his political views — something they called a clear First Amendment violation and a situation that could have wider implications amid Trump’s push to increase deportations.

Speaking outside the courthouse after the hearing, Khalil, a legal permanent resident who was born in Syria, told a crowd of supporters he planned to continue his legal fight to remain in the United States.

“This shows how my case is actually just a test for everyone’s right’s here across the country,” he said. “Not only one place, not only for specific people, for immigrants or documented or undocumented people, it’s for everyone across the country.”

The case against Khalil began in March, when he was arrested by immigration authorities at Columbia University, where he had recently completed a master’s degree and had become a prominent figure at pro-Palestinian protests. Authorities detained Khalil and then pushed to deport him, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio citing an obscure legal statute in contending that Khalil’s rhetoric and continued presence in the country could undermine U.S. foreign policy interests.

Khalil’s lawyers quickly challenged the administration’s actions in court — first in New York, where he lived and was arrested, then in New Jersey, where he was detained in the immediate aftermath of his arrest.

Within days, however, Khalil was transferred to a detention facility in Louisiana, where he was held for more than three months (he was living there this spring when his wife, an American citizen, gave birth to their son in New York).

The issue of where Khalil was located was something Ensign, the government attorney, said was important for the appellate judges to consider: Because Khalil was primarily detained in Louisiana, Ensign said, any legal challenge seeking to have him released should have taken place in that jurisdiction.

And in Ensign’s view, that meant the June ruling by a judge in New Jersey that ordered Khalil released — and temporarily blocked his deportation — should be overturned.

Several judges appeared skeptical of the jurisdictional aspect of Ensign’s argument. Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, pointed out that authorities were moving Khalil to various jurisdictions over a weekend — and suggested attorneys couldn’t be forced to wait until the work week to file emergency challenges to what they viewed as wrongful detention.

“The lawyers didn’t know” where Khalil was, Bibas said. “They had to do their best.”

The judges seemed more receptive to another of Ensign’s arguments: That Khalil is currently the subject of a complex web of legal cases, with various claims being weighed in various courts.

In addition to the matter being argued in Philadelphia on Tuesday, his immigration case remains pending in Louisiana because of a separate issue: In September, an immigration judge there ruled that Khalil be removed to Syria or Algeria because he failed to disclose information about his past work with pro-Palestinian groups on his green card application.

While his attorneys have appealed that ruling, the appellate panel on Tuesday questioned whether it was appropriate for different jurisdictions to be weighing different aspects of his various cases — particularly when many of the legal issues in them are generally similar.

Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman asked whether doing so would give Khalil a “second bite at the apple” to challenge rulings that don’t go his way.

It remained unclear Tuesday how or when the judges might rule.

Khalil, meanwhile, said outside the courthouse afterward: “We are in the fight until the end.”