Appeals Court Lifts Hold on Nationwide Expedited Removal

A divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday lifted a temporary hold that had blocked expanded use of expedited removal. The decision lets immigration authorities apply the fast-track process to migrants arrested anywhere in the country, not only near the border.

Background on the Policy Expedited removal allows officials to deport certain migrants without a hearing before an immigration judge. The process had been limited to recent border crossers and migrants arriving by sea. Last year the administration broadened the rule to cover any migrant unable to prove continuous presence in the United States for more than two years.

A district judge had issued a stay after finding that plaintiffs showed a strong likelihood the expanded process risked violating due-process rights. The appeals court panel, voting 2 to 1, concluded that the challengers had not demonstrated the process denies notice and an opportunity to be heard.

“The plaintiffs had not shown that the expedited-removal process denies its members notice and an opportunity to be heard." — Judge Justin R. The administration had argued in earlier filings that safeguards exist to prevent arbitrary removals and that the expansion is a lawful tool for enforcement. Migrants from Guatemala are deported to their country on a U.S. military plane at the Fort Bliss facility in Texas on Jan. 30, 2025. Immigration agents began whisking migrants away from courthouses where they had gone for immigration proceedings and then removing them from the country within days. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled in August that plaintiffs challenging the expansion had made a "strong showing" that it was trampling on people's due process rights, and she issued a stay order putting the policy on hold. Cobb said the administration had not developed procedures to ensure they and other groups of migrants were not wrongly deported under the expedited process. The plaintiffs had put forward "substantial evidence" that the expedited removal process, on the contrary, carried a high risk of error when applied more broadly, Cobb said. The ruling cited examples of people who had lived in the U.S. for far longer than two years but were still ordered to be removed in expedited proceedings. The administration appealed, arguing in a court filing that its expansion was legal, and protections were in place to prevent arbitrary removal. Cobb's ruling was an "egregious error" that was depriving the administration of an "essential tool to combat the unprecedented surge of illegal immigration over the past few years" and efficiently deport potentially millions of people, Justice Department attorneys argued in the October filing. An attorney for the plaintiffs said the ruling "undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them.”