A federal appeals court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to broaden the use of expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process that can result in an immigrant’s removal without a hearing before an immigration judge.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit revives a January 2025 policy that allows immigration authorities to use expedited removal against certain undocumented immigrants encountered anywhere in the United States, not only near the border, according to CNN.
The expanded policy applies to people who were not formally admitted or paroled into the country and who cannot establish at least two years of continuous physical presence in the United States. Under expedited removal, an immigration officer can issue a removal order without the standard immigration-court process.
For years, the government generally used expedited removal against people apprehended shortly after crossing the border or near a land border. The Trump administration sought to extend that authority across the country, significantly increasing the number of immigrants who could be placed into the rapid-removal process.
A federal district court had halted the policy in 2025, concluding that its broader application raised serious due-process concerns. But the appeals court ruled that the plaintiffs were unlikely to succeed on their constitutional challenge and vacated the lower court’s order.
Judge Justin Walker wrote that the law permits the Department of Homeland Security to designate certain immigrants already inside the United States for expedited removal. He concluded that the process provides notice and an opportunity for a person to respond to the government’s allegations.
The court noted that a person may raise claims that expedited removal does not apply to them, including proof of U.S. citizenship, lawful status, parole, refugee or asylum status, or evidence of at least two years of continuous physical presence in the country.
The decision also recognizes that people who express fear of persecution or torture, or an intention to apply for asylum, may be referred for a credible-fear screening. That process is separate from the standard immigration-court hearing and can still lead to further review in some cases.
Judge Neomi Rao joined the judgment allowing the administration’s policy to move forward. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented from the court’s due-process ruling, warning that the process is particularly inadequate for people encountered inside the country.
Wilkins wrote that placing people into expedited removal “without even being asked how long they have been in the country” may be insufficient for immigrants who have lived away from the border. He argued that the system creates a heightened risk of error when authorities do not provide a meaningful opportunity to gather evidence of long-term residence.
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the ruling. DHS General Counsel James Percival said the decision “vindicated” the administration’s approach and argued that the agency is applying the statute as written, according to CNN.
Immigrant-rights advocates strongly disagreed
“The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” Anand Balakrishnan, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement reported by CNN. He added that the ruling undermines due-process protections for people facing deportation.
The case is expected to remain a major point of contention between the administration and immigrant-rights organizations. While the ruling allows the expanded policy to take effect, advocacy groups may still pursue additional legal challenges.
For immigrant communities across the country, the decision makes the two-year residency threshold especially significant. People who may be affected should understand that expedited removal can proceed quickly and that documentation showing continuous residence may become critical during an encounter with immigration authorities.
https://ctninfo.com/appeals-court-al…tions-nationwide/
