Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Expedited Immigration Expulsions
On Monday, the Trump administration celebrated a significant victory in the realm of immigration law when a federal appeals court reinstated the nationwide policy for expedited expulsions. This decision enables the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to resume the rapid removal of certain undocumented immigrants who cannot prove they entered the country legally, particularly those who have resided in the U.S. for at least two years.
The ruling emerged from a 2-1 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reversed a lower court’s injunction that had blocked the policy. The court concluded that the arguments claiming the policy infringed on constitutional due process were unlikely to succeed.
Judge Justin Walker stated in the court’s opinion that “DHS exercised its discretion and applied its expedited removal authority to the fullest extent permitted by law.”
This ruling aligns with a push by the DHS to expand expedited removal, which had been limited for years under previous policies. DHS General Counsel James Percival commented, “DHS has arbitrarily limited expedited removal to 14 days for years, even though it applies to illegal aliens who entered the country illegally within the past two years.” He expressed satisfaction with the court’s decision, suggesting that it validates their alignment with the law.
The court’s ruling overturns a nationwide injunction previously issued by a Biden-appointed judge, Gia Cobb. She had asserted that the policy presented a substantial risk of individuals being wrongfully deported before they had a reasonable chance to prove their qualification for exemption from expedited removal.
The expedited removal policy was first expanded during Trump’s presidency in 2019 and was later rescinded by the Biden administration. However, it was reinstated shortly after Trump returned to office in January 2025.
The majority opinion noted that while the Constitution mandates notifying illegal immigrants of deportation actions, it does not require immigration authorities to elucidate all possible legal defenses against deportation.
Judge Walker remarked, “If due process requires the government to notify individuals of the two-year continuous stay rule, it would probably also need to notify them of all other grounds for objecting to expedited removal.” This reflects a complex aspect of the law that doesn’t simplify the situation for immigrants.
The court dismissed concerns that examples of wrongful deportations could render the policy unconstitutional. In fact, it indicated that while some valid instances of mistaken removal existed, that reflected on individual officers’ errors rather than flaws in the policy itself.
Justice Robert Wilkins dissented, arguing that the streamlined process did not sufficiently allow immigrants the chance to prove their two-year residency in the U.S., thereby possibly disqualifying them from expedited removal.
Overall, this ruling certainly sets the stage for a renewed emphasis on immigration enforcement, reflecting ongoing debates on how such policies should be implemented and their implications for affected individuals.
