A New Jersey federal judge has weighed in on the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist who was detained by ICE, ordering his case to be transferred from New York to New Jersey, where his lawyers will continue fighting for his release.

The Trump administration has accused Khalil of being a terrorist sympathizer for participating in anti Gaza war protests and was relying on obscure sections of U.S. law to give more broad authority in revoking a person's immigration status.

That authority is drawing increased attention, though, after the White House today failed to meet a deadline.

Responding to a federal judge's questions about deportation flights ordered by the president.

The court temporarily blocked the flights carrying Venezuelan migrants last weekend, ordering them to return to the U.S. but the flights landed anyway.

Trump and his allies have since called for the federal judge to be impeached.

The defiance against the judicial branch has top legal experts warning we're not just heading toward a constitutional crisis, we're in one.

For more on that, I'm joined by Rutgers law professor Rose Cuison-Villazor.

Professor, thanks for coming on the show.

A lot of legal scholars, folks like yourself, have said lately there are not just cracks in the system of our checks and balances.

We are in a constitutional crisis right now.

Is that true in your mind?

Absolutely.

In my mind, what is going on right now is that the United States government and in particular President Trump's administration, is expanding the use of executive powers in ways that have led to the lack of checks and balances to the point where the judiciary orders have been issued by federal judges seems to be being ignored by the Trump administration.

Is there, though, an argument to be made that there's a thin line between maybe procedural missteps and clear acts of defiance by the clear act of defiance that I am seeing, just based on what's been reported out there, suggests to me that the Trump administration is not complying with federal judges in their specific orders.

That's a problem in my mind, because we really need to make make sure that there are checks and balances that are being followed as part of the constitutional framework that our the framers of the Constitution created.

So, okay, the president's administration claimed this urgency when we're talking about these most recent deportations, these members who they claimed were part of an El Salvadorian gang.

The courts ordered those planes, some which were in midair to turn around, others to come back.

The administration did not adhere to that.

And in fact, there were posts on social media, but they said that there was this sense of urgency that these these are people who who posed a threat.

How does the law work in that case when these are folks who were being detained, as far as we know and certainly weren't out in the public?

It's not clear to me that these noncitizens who were these Venezuelans who were removed from the United States had had that due process, had a due process hearing before a judge.

Instead, what seems to have taken place was that the administration decided to bring all a number, several of them, hundreds of them together, put them on a plane and deported them to El Salvador.

Are we at a tipping point then, if the executive branch can't be held accountable, that that's why we're in a serious constitutional crisis?

The executive branch obviously has the power to implement and enforce the laws, but those laws must comply with the U.S. Constitution.

And under the Supreme Court's precedent, Marbury versus Madison, one of our earliest cases in the United States in the under the U.S. Supreme Court.

It is the federal judges.

It is these courts that have the power to determine whether there is a violation of the Constitution, even if the actor in this case is the federal government.

ROSE Before I let you go, I just want to get your take very quickly the case of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University student, the graduate who graduated from there, a judge on Wednesday said that he wouldn't hear the merits of the case, but that the case would be transferred to New Jersey.

Khalil will not be deported.

What do you make of that and what it means for his chance at due process?

Judge Furman's order in transferring the case from New York to the District of New Jersey is a strong indication that in this case, there will be an opportunity for Mr. Khalil's constitute tional rights to be heard by a federal judge who would be sitting in New Jersey.

And his case, Mr. Khalil's case, is a challenge to his removal on the grounds that his he is being removed for being deported by the United States government because of his participation in the Columbia protests.

And he's saying that this that his deportation will violate his First Amendment rights to free speech, as well as his Fifth Amendment right to due process.

It's a slippery slope.

Rose Cuison-Villazor is a professor of law at Rutgers.

Rose, thank you so much.

Thank you so much.