Richie Diesterheft / Wikimedia Commons
Why It Matters
A federal appeals court ruling issued this week significantly expands the federal government’s authority to remove illegal immigrants from anywhere in the United States — not just at the southern border — without requiring a hearing before an immigration judge. The decision is a major legal victory for the Trump administration’s enforcement agenda and removes a key judicial obstacle that had stalled the policy.
What Happened
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia handed down a 2-1 ruling allowing the Trump administration to use expedited removal procedures on illegal immigrants encountered in the interior of the country. The policy had previously been limited to individuals apprehended near the southern border.
Under the expanded authority, immigrants who cannot demonstrate at least two years of continuous presence in the United States are subject to fast-track deportation — in some cases within hours — without an appearance before an immigration judge. Lower courts had blocked the policy, citing due process concerns, but the appeals court vacated those rulings.
Judge Justin R. Walker, a Trump appointee, authored the majority opinion. Judge Neomi Rao, also appointed by President Trump, joined him. The majority held that the policy does not violate the due process rights of immigrants subject to expedited removal. Judge Robert L. Wilkins, nominated by former President Barack Obama, dissented.
What Both Sides Said
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the decision. DHS General Counsel James Percival said the ruling confirmed the administration was applying the law as Congress intended. “Today, the DC Circuit vindicated our decision to apply the law as written,” Percival said in a statement.
The dissenting judge argued the procedure falls short of constitutional standards when applied outside of border zones. Judge Wilkins wrote that a process capable of resulting in deportation without even asking an individual how long they have been in the country “might satisfy due process for persons encountered at the border, but it is woefully inadequate for persons encountered in the interior of the country.”
The lawsuit challenging the policy was brought by Make the Road New York, an immigration advocacy group that had argued the expanded use of expedited removal denied affected individuals meaningful legal recourse. The Department of Justice had previously argued, as recently as December, that due process protections are not guaranteed for immigrants subject to fast-track removal procedures.
By the Numbers
- 2-1 — the vote margin on the appeals court decision
- 2 years — the continuous-presence threshold immigrants must meet to avoid expedited removal proceedings
- Hours — the timeframe in which some removals can now be carried out without a court hearing
- 2 — the number of Trump-appointed judges in the majority
Zoom Out
The ruling represents one of the most consequential immigration enforcement decisions since President Trump returned to office in January 2025. Previous administrations had confined expedited removal largely to the border, where Border Patrol agents have long used the tool to quickly process and remove individuals without lengthy immigration court proceedings. Extending that authority to the interior of the country dramatically expands the pool of people potentially subject to rapid removal.
The legal fight over this policy reflects a broader pattern playing out in courts across the country, where the Trump administration has pursued aggressive immigration enforcement only to face challenges from lower courts — some of which have been reversed on appeal. This ruling may encourage the administration to push further on enforcement priorities that had previously stalled in litigation.
Courts have remained a central battleground for immigration policy. Similar questions about due process and executive authority have surfaced in cases ranging from border enforcement to deportation flights, and the D.C. Circuit’s majority reasoning is likely to be cited in future disputes.
What’s Next
With the lower court injunctions vacated, the Department of Homeland Security can immediately resume and expand its use of expedited removal in the interior. The plaintiffs may seek further review, including a potential appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Immigration advocacy groups have indicated they intend to continue challenging the policy through the courts.
About the Author
