A divided federal appeals court panel on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants throughout the United States, not just near the border.
Court ruling overturns injunction
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, threw out a lower court ruling that had temporarily blocked President Donald Trump's expanded use of expedited removal. The ruling marks a significant victory for the Republican administration, which views the expansion as a key tool for implementing its mass deportation policy.
Expedited removal — a process that allows for quick deportation without a hearing before an immigration judge — had previously been applied only to migrants arriving by sea or those apprehended at or near the border shortly after crossing. In January, Trump expanded its use to undocumented migrants anywhere in the United States.
Impact on migrants and legal challenges
Immigration agents have begun detaining migrants at courthouses where they had appeared for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) challenged the expansion, arguing it violates due process rights.
“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement. Balakrishnan, who represented plaintiffs in arguments before the appellate panel, said the ruling “undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”
Judicial reasoning
DC Circuit Judge Justin R. Walker, writing for the majority, said the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that the expanded use of expedited removal violated due process rights. He noted that immigrants receive notice of removal proceedings and are given an opportunity to respond. Walker and the second judge in the majority, Neomi Rao, were appointed by Trump. The third judge on the panel was appointed by President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
Walker rejected the argument that the administration must inform immigrants that they can avoid expedited removal if they can show they have been in the United States for more than two years. “The constitutional requirement is notice of the action the government is taking and the grounds for it, plus an opportunity to respond,” he wrote, adding that the plaintiffs’ “contrary reasoning would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice.”
Lower court findings and evidence of errors
The ruling vacated an order by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by President Joe Biden, who had put the expanded use of expedited removal on hold in August. Cobb ruled that the administration had not developed procedures to ensure migrants were not wrongly deported under the expedited process. She cited “substantial evidence” that the process carried a high risk of error when applied broadly, including examples of people who had lived in the U.S. for far longer than two years but were still ordered removed in expedited proceedings.
In his opinion, Walker acknowledged evidence of such errors but said they resulted from “individual officers’ failure to follow the law — not defects in the written directives under review or the procedures they incorporate.”
Administration's position
The Trump administration has argued that its expansion of expedited removal includes protections to prevent arbitrary removal. In a court filing in October, Justice Department attorneys called Cobb’s ruling an “egregious error” that deprived the administration of an “essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years” and efficiently deport potentially millions of people.
