Appeals Court Lets ICE Resume Nationwide Fast-Track Deportations
🤖 AI Generated ImageA deportation process once limited to the border can now be used anywhere in the country.
A federal appeals court cleared the way Tuesday, reviving a policy a lower court had blocked just months earlier.
What Expedited Removal Actually Changes
CBS News reported the 2-1 ruling from a panel at the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allows the Department of Homeland Security to move forward with expanding the expedited removal process nationwide.
Expedited removal empowers federal immigration officials to deport certain detainees without a court hearing, a significant departure from the standard immigration process, where someone arrested in the interior of the country would typically see an immigration judge first.
Before this expansion, the policy applied only to recent arrivals encountered near the border, who couldn't prove they'd been living in the country for more than two weeks.
The policy now permits its use anywhere in the US, against any unauthorized immigrant who cannot demonstrate continuous presence in the country for at least two years.
📰 Related: Trump Admin Ties Security Funds to Election Changes
How the Legal Fight Got Here
The policy was originally drafted during the first week of Trump's second term, in January 2025.
A federal judge found in August 2025 that the administration's expansion violated due process rights, following a lawsuit brought by immigrant advocacy group Make the Road New York. That lower court ruling had blocked the policy from taking effect.
Fox News reported the appellate panel disagreed with that earlier ruling, with Trump-appointed judges Justin Walker and Neomi Rao finding in the majority opinion that the policy provides sufficient due process protections as written.
Walker wrote that DHS had exercised its discretion to apply expedited removal authority to the maximum extent the law allows, rejecting the argument that the government must proactively inform people that proving two years of continuous presence could exempt them from the process.
📰 Related: Two Men Jailed for Spying for China at UK's Old Bailey
The Specific Disagreement at the Center of the Case
The central legal question wasn't whether expedited removal itself is constitutional — it's whether the specific procedures DHS uses to apply it provide migrants a meaningful opportunity to avoid wrongful removal.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that a February 2025 ICE policy memo instructed agents to give people a "brief but reasonable opportunity" to provide documentation if they claimed to have lived in the country longer than two years — but the government didn't share that memo with the court until October 2025, well after the policy had already been in use.
Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling, arguing the policy doesn't require immigration officers to even ask migrants how long they've been in the country, leaving people to hope an officer concludes on their own that they've met the burden of proof.
The majority pushed back directly on that argument, with Walker writing that requiring officers to proactively explain every possible basis for contesting expedited removal would effectively require them to provide legal advice — a standard he said the challengers offered no legal basis for imposing.
What Both Sides Are Actually Saying
James Percival, general counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, said the ruling vindicated the administration's approach, characterizing the agency's prior, more limited application of expedited removal as an arbitrary restriction not required by the underlying statute.
Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney at the ACLU and lead counsel in the case, said the ruling undermines a fundamental principle that people receive due process before the government deports them, and confirmed the group is weighing next steps.
Make the Road New York Deputy Director Yaritza Mendez characterized the decision as part of a broader pattern of policies severely undermining due process for immigrant communities, warning it could lead to wrongful deportations that permanently separate families.
The dispute over whether the record contains evidence of people being wrongly subjected to expedited removal despite living in the country for more than two years was itself contested — the majority opinion acknowledged some such cases exist in the record, while finding they didn't establish the broader policy as unconstitutional.
What Comes Next
DHS can now resume applying expedited removal nationwide while the broader legal challenge continues, since the appellate ruling vacated the lower court's order blocking the policy.
The ACLU has not said whether it will seek further review, either through a request for the full DC Circuit to rehear the case or through an appeal to the Supreme Court.
In the meantime, the practical effect is immediate: immigration officers anywhere in the country can now place someone into expedited removal proceedings without a hearing, provided that person cannot demonstrate they've lived in the US continuously for at least two years — a standard advocacy groups say many people will have no real opportunity to prove on the spot.
Key Takeaways
- A federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to resume nationwide expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process that bypasses immigration court hearings.
- The 2-1 ruling came from a panel at the DC Circuit Court of Appeals; Trump appointees Justin Walker and Neomi Rao formed the majority.
- The policy applies to anyone who cannot prove two years of continuous presence in the US.
- A lower court had blocked the policy in August 2025 following a lawsuit from Make the Road New York.
- Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins dissented, arguing the policy doesn't require officers to ask how long someone has been in the country.
- The ACLU says it is exploring next steps, including possible further appeals.
Sources
Also Read
You might also like
World News Correspondent
Rachel Hayes reports on international affairs, geopolitics, and breaking world news. Based in London, she covers stories shaping the UK and global political landscape.
