Federal Judge Blocks Trump Push to Expand “Fast-Track” Deportations, Citing Due-Process Risks

Federal Judge Blocks Trump Push to Expand “Fast-Track” Deportations, Citing Due-Process Risks

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Biden-appointed judge expanded effort by the Trump administration to broaden the use of expedited removal — a fast-track deportation process — across the United States, finding that applying the truncated procedure to people living in the interior would likely violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. The ruling is a major legal setback for an administration that has made rapid deportations a central priority.

U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb of the District of Columbia put on hold two January 2025 policies that extended the government’s authority to subject noncitizens to expedited removal if they could not prove they had been in the United States for at least two years — even when they were apprehended far from a border crossing. Cobb said the government had dramatically expanded the pool of people vulnerable to summary expulsion without adapting procedures to protect those with deeper ties to the country.

The core of the decision

Cobb’s 48-page opinion emphasized the difference between the population traditionally subject to expedited removal — recent border crossers detained within about 100 miles of a border and within 14 days of entry — and the much larger interior population targeted by the new directive. “They have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment,” she wrote, adding that the government’s “skimpy” procedures create an intolerable risk of erroneous removals when used nationwide.

The judge also declined the administration’s request to pause the ruling while the government prepared an appeal, meaning the injunction will remain in place as litigation proceeds. The decision follows an earlier order this month in which Cobb temporarily blocked the administration’s attempt to fast-track deportations of immigrants paroled into the U.S. under humanitarian programs.

Who sued and what they argued

The American Civil Liberties Union and Make the Road New York brought the lawsuit challenging the expansion, arguing the January directive deprived migrants of meaningful notice and any real opportunity to contest their removal. Plaintiffs warned that many people could be mistakenly pushed through expedited channels without understanding that they had rights, such as the ability to request asylum. Cobb agreed the challengers had made a “strong showing” that the policy likely violates due process. 

Administration response

The Department of Homeland Security defended the policy in a terse statement, saying the court’s order “ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law,” and reiterated the White House position that it has a mandate to arrest and deport who it called “the worst of the worst.” DHS officials have argued the expanded use of expedited removal is lawful and necessary to carry out the administration’s pledge to dramatically increase deportations.

Legal and procedural background

Expedited removal was created in the Immigration and Nationality Act (and later regulation) to permit quick returns of migrants intercepted shortly after crossing a border; historically it has applied to people within 100 miles of a border who have been in the U.S. for fewer than 14 days. The Trump administration’s January 2025 directive broadened the statute’s use to interior enforcement and to people present in the country up to two years — a change that critics say vastly raises the stakes because many of those individuals have established residential ties and more at stake than recent crossers.

Judge Cobb stressed that the statute’s longstanding border application does not resolve whether it can be used for interior removals without additional procedural safeguards. In language underscoring the constitutional gravity of the question, she warned that prioritizing speed over accuracy “will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”

Implications for the administration’s deportation agenda

The injunction undercuts a central component of the White House’s plan to scale up removals; rapid deportations without full immigration-court hearings were seen by senior officials as a tool to reach the stated goal of very large annual removal numbers. Courts have already blocked other aggressive deportation tactics this year — including attempts to fast-track people paroled at ports of entry and the use of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act for certain removals — producing a pattern of judicial resistance to sweeping, expediency-focused enforcement moves. The Friday order is expected to be appealed, and the administration is likely to push the question up the appellate ladder quickly. 

Human impact and enforcement practice

Advocates and immigration lawyers said the ruling offers immediate relief to many who have been targeted in recent domestic arrests — including workplace raids and courthouse arrests — where officers have used the expanded rules to attempt quick removals. They argued the truncated process can deny vulnerable people meaningful access to asylum screening and legal counsel, and that many noncitizens may not know how to invoke protections that exist under U.S. law. Government attorneys counter that asylum interviews are still available in expedited removal and that the policy helps protect public safety by removing criminally dangerous individuals more quickly.

Writer’s analysis — why the ruling matters beyond the courthouse

The case touches on three intersecting themes that will shape U.S. immigration policy going forward.

First, due process vs. administrative speed. The administration’s agenda rests on the premise that streamlined procedures are necessary to manage large numbers of removals. Cobb’s ruling reminds policymakers and courts that procedural economy cannot eclipse constitutional protections when the liberty interests at stake are substantial. When expedited removal is applied to interior populations with established ties, the risk of catastrophic error rises and courts are likely to demand stronger safeguards.

Second, the litigation playbook. Civil-rights organizations have effectively used federal courts to block several of the administration’s most aggressive immigration measures this year. The ruling is the latest indicator that judicial pushback will remain a central check on executive actions that attempt sweeping changes to immigration enforcement without new legislation from Congress. Expect rapid appeals, and for the question ultimately to land on appellate benches — and possibly the Supreme Court — before long. 

Third, political and operational fallout. The injunction complicates operational planning at DHS and ICE and injects legal uncertainty into enforcement priorities. That uncertainty may force the administration to recalibrate tactics (for example, concentrating removals at the border where expedited removal clearly applies) or to pursue alternative statutory authorities — both of which could slow the pace of removals relative to its stated targets. Politically, the decision is also likely to amplify partisan debate over whether courts are standing in the way of elected officials’ enforcement agendas.

What to watch next

• Whether the administration files an immediate appeal and seeks a stay from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. 

• How DHS and ICE revise guidance to field operations now that the interior expansion is paused, and whether they shift enforcement back toward border-proximate operations where expedited removal remains undisputed. 

• Any emergency motions or larger class-action litigation that could broaden — or narrow — the scope of protections for people who entered the U.S. in the past two years. 

• The potential political fallout as Congress weighs oversight hearings or legislative responses to the administration’s broader deportation targets.