A federal judge has temporarily halted the Trump administration’s expansive policy to fast-track deportations of undocumented migrants detained within the United States, a move that represents a significant setback for the administration’s ambitious immigration enforcement agenda. U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb, appointed by President Joe Biden, issued a nationwide order Friday, finding that the broadened use of “expedited removal” likely violates the due process rights of individuals apprehended away from the border.
The ruling, issued in a case brought by civil rights organizations including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Make the Road New York, challenges a January directive that expanded expedited removal beyond its traditional scope. Previously, this process was largely confined to migrants apprehended within 100 miles of the U.S. border and who had been in the country for less than 14 days. The Trump administration’s policy, however, sought to apply it to any undocumented immigrant anywhere in the country who could not prove they had resided in the U.S. for at least two years.
Judge Cobb’s 48-page opinion specifically addressed the administration’s assertion that individuals encountered in the interior of the U.S. were entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment. She characterized this argument as “startling,” stating that “prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.” While not questioning the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute itself or its long-standing application at the border, Cobb emphasized that applying it to a large group of people living in the interior requires adherence to due process.
“It merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process,” Cobb wrote. “The procedures currently in place fall short.”
Expedited removal is a process codified in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, allowing immigration officials to deport certain noncitizens without providing them a hearing before an immigration judge. This streamlined process can lead to deportations within days or weeks, and typically carries a five-year bar from re-entry. Advocates argue that this lack of judicial review, opportunity to consult legal counsel, or present evidence significantly increases the risk of wrongful deportations, potentially impacting U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, and individuals with legitimate claims for asylum or other protections.
The Trump administration’s expansion of expedited removal is a key component of President Donald Trump’s promise to engineer the “largest domestic deportation operation in American history,” with a stated goal of carrying out 1 million deportations annually in a second term. The ability to swiftly remove migrants without court appearances is viewed as a critical tool for achieving such large-scale operations.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded to the ruling, stating that the court’s decision “ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” DHS maintained that it “has the law, facts, and common sense on our side.”
This ruling is the latest in a series of legal challenges targeting the administration’s immigration policies. Earlier in August, Judge Cobb also temporarily blocked the administration from rapidly deporting immigrants granted parole at a port of entry, a decision that could affect hundreds of thousands of individuals. The legal battles underscore the deep divisions and ongoing policy debates surrounding immigration enforcement in the US.
The expansion of expedited removal has been a trending topic in immigration policy, with critics arguing that it undermines fundamental due process protections and creates an “intolerable risk” of erroneous removals. The ACLU stated that the court’s decision “reaffirms the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them or their families.”
While the immediate effect of Friday’s order is a pause on the nationwide expansion, the administration is expected to appeal the decision. The outcome of these legal challenges will have substantial implications for the future of immigration enforcement in the US and the rights of millions of noncitizens within its borders. This piece of news highlights the ongoing tension between executive authority in immigration matters and constitutional safeguards.
