Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Expedited Removal Policy
A significant immigration policy from the Trump administration has been revived, following a federal appeals court decision that reinstates the nationwide expedited removal process. This ruling permits the Department of Homeland Security to resume the rapid deportation of eligible undocumented immigrants.
The policy allows federal immigration authorities to quickly remove certain migrants apprehended anywhere in the country if they did not enter or were not paroled into the U.S. legally, and cannot demonstrate continuous residency for at least two years. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, overturned a lower court’s injunction that had halted the policy. The majority found that the challengers were unlikely to succeed in their arguments that the expanded policy violates constitutional due process rights.
Court’s Rationale on Policy Implementation
Writing for the majority, Judge Justin Walker explained that the Department of Homeland Security was exercising its discretionary authority to apply expedited removal to the fullest extent permitted by law. “DHS thereby exercised its discretion to apply its expedited-removal authority to the maximum extent allowed by law,” Walker stated.
Department of Homeland Security officials expressed satisfaction with the ruling. A spokesperson for DHS stated, “For years, DHS has arbitrarily limited expedited removal to 14 days even though it applies to illegal aliens who entered the country illegally within the last two years. Today, the D.C. Circuit vindicated our decision to apply the law as written. It’s not too late to take a $2,600 check and a free flight home!”
Reversal of Lower Court’s Block
This decision reverses a nationwide stay previously issued by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb. Judge Cobb, appointed during the Biden administration, had expressed concerns that the policy posed a substantial risk of individuals being wrongly deported before they had a fair chance to establish their eligibility for exemptions to expedited removal.
The Trump administration initially implemented an expanded version of this expedited removal policy nationwide in 2019. The Biden administration later rescinded it, but the Department of Homeland Security reinstated the policy shortly after former President Trump’s return to office in January 2025.
Constitutional Due Process Considerations
The majority on the appeals court concluded that while the Constitution mandates that the government notify individuals facing deportation and provide an opportunity to respond, it does not require immigration officials to detail every potential legal defense that could prevent removal. “The constitutional requirement is notice of the action the government is taking and the grounds for it, plus an opportunity to respond,” Walker wrote. “It is not a requirement that the government explain how the individual might prevail.”
The court dismissed arguments that DHS is obligated to proactively inform individuals of their right to avoid expedited removal by proving continuous residency in the United States for at least two years. Walker noted, “If due process requires the government to inform individuals of the two-year continuous-presence rule, it presumably also requires informing them of every other basis for contesting expedited removal. Make the Road offers no limiting principle and identifies no authority for so expansive a requirement.”
Addressing Wrongful Deportations
Furthermore, the majority addressed claims that instances of wrongful deportations indicated the policy’s unconstitutionality. The opinion acknowledged, “To be sure, the record contains evidence that some aliens have been erroneously subjected to expedited removal despite having been present for more than two years. If so, that’s illegal. But the cause there would be individual officers’ failure to follow the law — not defects in the written directives under review.”
Dissenting Opinion Highlights Procedural Concerns
In a dissenting opinion, Judge Robert Wilkins argued that the Department of Homeland Security’s current procedures do not offer migrants a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate their eligibility for an exemption from expedited removal. Wilkins stated, “DHS is using procedures that do not allow a meaningful opportunity for noncitizens to demonstrate that they have been continuously present in the United States for two years.”
