- “This ruling is a vital reminder that due process is not optional.” – Aditi Shah, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia
by Vanguard Staff
A federal court in Washington has blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to expand fast-track deportations, ruling that the policy likely violates constitutional protections while litigation moves forward.
The case, Make the Road New York v. Noem, was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the New York Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Make the Road New York. The lawsuit challenged the administration’s January 2025 policy that authorized Immigration and Customs Enforcement to place people into expedited removal proceedings if they could not prove two years of continuous presence in the United States, regardless of where they were encountered.
Previously, expedited removal had been limited to individuals at or near the border or those who had arrived by sea. The expanded designation allowed ICE to arrest individuals at courthouses, workplaces, and community spaces far from the border, stripping them of the chance to present their case before an immigration judge.
In a 48-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb granted a stay of the policy, finding that the government’s expansion of expedited removal likely violated the due process rights of people living in the country’s interior. The judge wrote that, while expedited removal had historically applied to individuals with negligible ties to the United States, the new policy swept in people who had lived here for months or years, many of whom had pending asylum claims or other legal avenues for relief.
The court emphasized that the Constitution guarantees no person can be removed from the country without an opportunity to be heard. It found that the truncated process of expedited removal, when applied to people long settled in the United States, created a significant risk of wrongful deportation. The opinion described cases in which people were arrested at their immigration court hearings, their regular proceedings dismissed without notice, and then placed into expedited removal where they could be deported within days, with no chance to contact counsel or gather evidence.
The ruling came after Make the Road presented evidence that ICE had conducted courthouse arrests in cities including New York, Chicago, Seattle, and San Antonio. The group also documented workplace raids that began in June as part of what the administration described as a new phase of immigration enforcement. In one instance, the White House “border czar” Thomas Homan warned, “You’re going to see more work site enforcement than you’ve ever seen in the history of this nation,” according to declarations submitted in court.
The court found that individuals targeted under the 2025 designation faced irreparable harm, including separation from their families and the loss of the chance to pursue asylum claims. It rejected the government’s argument that noncitizens who entered unlawfully had no constitutional protections, calling that a startling claim that would undermine due process for everyone.
The ruling was celebrated by immigrant rights advocates who brought the case.
“The Trump administration’s expansion of fast-track deportations has subjected thousands of people to an unfair, arbitrary, and error-prone system. The court’s decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them or their families,” said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel.
“We are glad the judge recognized the immense due-process problems posed by this administration’s reckless expansion of expedited removal. This policy has inflicted enormous harms on MRNY’s members and community, and it has to stop. We will continue to defend our communities from unconstitutional attacks levied by this administration, because we are here to stay,” said Harold Solis, co-legal director of Make the Road New York.
“This ruling is a vital reminder that due process is not optional. Expanding expedited removal would have exposed thousands to wrongful deportation, without even the chance to make their case. We welcome the court’s decision to block this dangerous policy. If the government can sidestep people’s due process rights, it sets a dangerous precedent that puts everyone’s rights at risk,” said Aditi Shah, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia.
“This decision rightly rejects the Trump administration’s extremist, unjust policy of fast-tracking mass deportations without due process,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This cruel policy tried to deny hundreds of thousands of people — parents, workers, friends, and loved ones — their constitutional right to a fair hearing, putting them at risk of wrongful deportation. Everyone deserves a fair day in court when their future is on the line.”
Declarations submitted in the case included accounts from individuals at risk under the new designation. One woman, identified as Jane Doe 2, described fleeing government-aligned gangs in March 2024 with her partner and children. She was in regular immigration proceedings and had applied for asylum, but under the new rules faced the prospect of being detained and separated from her children. Another member, John Doe 4, said he had filed an asylum application after arriving in October 2023, but feared being placed into expedited removal before his case could be heard.
The court also highlighted cases in which people who had been in the country longer than two years were nonetheless placed into expedited removal because they lacked documentation to prove their presence on short notice. In one instance, a woman who had lived in the United States since 2015 was detained with her teenage son after a traffic stop and ordered removed the next morning without access to counsel.
The government argued that Congress had given the Department of Homeland Security discretion to apply expedited removal broadly and that noncitizens without lawful status were entitled only to the process Congress provided. The court rejected that reasoning, citing more than a century of precedent that even those who entered unlawfully must be afforded due process before removal.
The stay issued by the court halts the 2025 designation and related guidance while the case proceeds. The opinion stressed that it did not question the constitutionality of expedited removal at the border, but only its expansion deep into the interior of the country.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues
