Another judicial roadblock has slammed the brakes on the Trump administration’s push to streamline deportations across the nation.
India Today reported that on Saturday, a federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., upheld a lower court decision blocking the administration’s plan to expand expedited removals for unauthorized migrants anywhere in the United States, citing major concerns over due process violations.
This saga kicked off earlier in January 2025, when the current administration rolled out a policy to apply fast-track deportations to non-citizens unable to prove two years of residency in the country.
It’s a revival of a 2019 Trump-era measure that was later scrapped by President Joe Biden. The idea was to extend a system, in place for nearly three decades near border zones, to the entire nation.
Fast forward to August 29, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb dropped a legal bombshell, ruling that the Department of Homeland Security could not enforce this broadened policy. Her reasoning? The risk of rapid expulsion for migrants was far too high if officials merely suspected a short residency.
The Trump administration didn’t take this lying down, urging the DC Circuit Court of Appeals to pause Judge Cobb’s ruling while their challenge moved ahead.
But in a 2-1 decision on November 22, the appeals court largely sided with the lower court. They weren’t buying the administration’s argument that safeguards were sufficient.
Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and J. Michelle Childs pointed to “serious risks of erroneous summary removal” in extending the process nationwide.
Let’s unpack that—judges are essentially saying the policy could sweep up folks who deserve a fair shake, all in the name of speed. While efficiency in immigration enforcement is a worthy goal, trampling constitutional rights isn’t the way to get there.
Not everyone on the bench agreed, though, with Circuit Judge Neomi Rao, a Trump appointee, calling Cobb’s ruling “impermissible judicial interference.”
That’s a polite way of saying the judiciary might be overstepping into executive turf, and from a conservative lens, it’s hard not to wonder if activist judges are stalling policies the left simply doesn’t like. Still, even dissenters must grapple with the real risk of error in such a sweeping system.
The appeals court did tweak one part of Judge Cobb’s order, lifting the requirement to overhaul how immigration officials evaluate a migrant’s credible fear of returning home. It’s a small win for the administration, but the core of the policy remains frozen.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has stayed mum on the ruling, leaving us to speculate on their next move. Will they double down or rethink the approach? Silence isn’t exactly a confidence booster.
Let’s not forget the roots of this debate—expedited removal has been a tool for quick deportations near the border since the 1990s. It’s a mechanism designed for efficiency, but expanding it nationwide raises the stakes considerably.
The 2019 version of this policy, also challenged by groups like Make the Road New York, showed just how contentious this territory is.
From a right-of-center view, securing borders and enforcing immigration law are non-negotiable priorities, especially when resources are stretched thin.
Yet, the appeals court’s concern over Fifth Amendment rights isn’t something to brush off lightly. A balance must be struck, or the policy risks becoming a progressive talking point about heartless governance.
The full appeal is slated for a hearing on December 9, 2025, so this legal tug-of-war is far from over. Until then, the administration’s hands are tied on this expansion. It’s a frustrating delay for those who see unauthorized migration as a pressing issue needing swift action.
Critics of the progressive agenda might argue this ruling is another example of courts pandering to a narrative that prioritizes open borders over national security.
But let’s be fair—due process isn’t a woke invention; it’s a constitutional bedrock. The challenge for the administration is crafting a policy that doesn’t just sound tough but holds up under legal scrutiny.