This is an extension-of-time request—not a merits ruling

The Supreme Court has not ruled on the constitutional or jurisdictional issues in Khalil’s underlying case. This filing is specifically an application for an extension of time (EOT) so Khalil can file his cert petition later. If the extension is granted, it would shift the timetable for the Supreme Court’s review of the question presented.

Key dates in the Supreme Court EOT timeline

• July 15, 2026: Khalil filed the EOT application asking for a 30-day extension.
• July 17, 2026: The Supreme Court docketed the request, and the government filed an opposition.
• July 24, 2026: Khalil filed a reply.

What the dispute is about (as framed in the EOT papers)

Khalil says the federal government detained him on March 8, 2025 and charged him as removable, including based on a determination by then-Secretary of State Marco Rubio tied to foreign-policy concerns. Khalil challenged both his detention and his removal in a habeas proceeding.

According to the EOT application, a district court found it had habeas jurisdiction and—after transfer to the District of New Jersey—issued a preliminary injunction in June 2025 prohibiting detention or removal based on the Rubio determination, and later ordered his release on bail on June 20, 2025. The Third Circuit then reversed, and Khalil’s Supreme Court filing centers on whether a federal statute—8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)—strips district courts of habeas jurisdiction over constitutional challenges related to unlawful detention and removal.

Why Khalil wants the extra 30 days

Khalil argues additional time is warranted because of counsel’s other upcoming litigation deadlines and, crucially, because other federal appeals courts have recently issued decisions addressing similar § 1252(b)(9) questions.

In his July 24 reply, Khalil points to two developments: a Second Circuit decision in Mahdawi v. Trump on July 21, 2026, and a Fourth Circuit decision in Suri v. Trump on July 23, 2026. He says the upcoming cert petition should reflect those new rulings and how they bear on the issues presented.

Why the government opposes the extension

The government argues there is no “good cause” for the delay and emphasizes that the EOT would extend the stay of the Third Circuit’s mandate. In its opposition, the government says an extension would not be harmless because if Khalil files the petition on September 21, 2026, the Court would likely not be able to consider it until a conference late in the fall.

The government also argues that prompt execution of removal orders is an important public interest, and it stresses that Khalil would still have another opportunity to seek further relief if the mandate proceeds.

What to watch next

Next, the Supreme Court—acting through the circuit-justice process—must decide whether to grant the extension of time. If the Court grants it, the practical result is that Khalil’s cert petition would be due under the revised deadline of September 21, 2026, after which the Court would consider whether to take the case.

Sources

• U.S. Supreme Court docket (No. 26A90)