A federal appeals court has reinstated a Trump administration policy expanding expedited removal, allowing immigration officials to deport certain illegal aliens without a full court hearing.
The ruling reverses a lower court order that had blocked the program and restores the government’s authority to apply the fast-track process more broadly across the interior of the United States.
The dispute arises from a January 21, 2025, directive issued under acting Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Benjamin Huffman, which revived a 2019 policy while expanding its scope beyond traditional border enforcement, according to Courthouse News.
Under the revised framework, expedited removal applies not only to illegal aliens encountered near the southern border but also to individuals apprehended within 100 miles of it and, in some cases, anywhere in the country if they cannot prove at least two years of continuous presence in the United States.
The immigration group Make the Road New York challenged the policy, arguing it enables rapid deportations without sufficient legal safeguards.
U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, appointed during the Biden administration, previously blocked enforcement of the policy after finding that challengers were likely to succeed in showing it violated constitutional protections for due process.
Her ruling focused on concerns that illegal aliens could be placed into expedited removal proceedings without adequate safeguards to meaningfully contest deportation or establish eligibility for exceptions under federal immigration law.
On appeal, the D.C. Circuit reversed that decision and reinstated the policy.
The majority concluded that the challengers had not shown the directive itself deprived individuals of constitutionally required notice or a real opportunity to respond.
The court emphasized that existing immigration procedures already allow illegal aliens to raise defenses such as continuous physical presence and other protections set out in federal law during processing.
The court also rejected the lower court’s reasoning on constitutional standards, pointing to Supreme Court precedent holding that due process is satisfied when individuals receive notice reasonably calculated to inform them of government action and are given a chance to respond.
The majority said the expedited removal system meets that standard because it allows individuals to raise objections within the framework established by Congress, even under an accelerated enforcement process.
A dissenting opinion raised concerns about the practical impact of the policy, warning that expanded use of expedited removal could increase the risk of wrongful deportations.
According to USA Today, it cited instances in which individuals with long-term residence histories were processed without sufficient inquiry into whether they qualified for exemptions.
The dissent also noted that officers are not required under the directive to ask how long someone has been in the country, raising questions about how consistently the two-year threshold is applied in practice.
Expedited removal has long existed as a streamlined deportation tool primarily used for illegal aliens apprehended near the border shortly after entry.
It was expanded in 2019 under the Trump administration, later rolled back, and then reinstated in 2025 under the Huffman directive, extending its reach deeper into the interior under conditions tied to residency length and documentation status.
DHS said the policy reflects authority granted by Congress and falls within established immigration enforcement powers.
Justice Department attorneys have similarly argued in court filings that expedited removal remains a lawful tool for managing high-volume immigration cases efficiently while operating within constitutional limits.
Immigrant rights organizations, including Make the Road New York, criticized the ruling and warned that broader use of expedited removal increases the likelihood of individuals being deported without full judicial review.
