On August 29, 2025, a federal judge delivered a dramatic blow to President Donald Trump’s ambitious immigration agenda, issuing a temporary block on the administration’s efforts to rapidly deport undocumented immigrants detained within the United States. The ruling, handed down by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, comes amid a renewed push by the Trump administration to expand the use of the federal expedited removal statute—a legal tool that allows for the swift deportation of certain undocumented migrants without the benefit of a judicial hearing.
According to the Associated Press, Judge Cobb’s decision immediately halts a core component of Trump’s second-term pledge: the removal of 1 million undocumented immigrants per year. This promise, a centerpiece of his 2024 campaign, was set in motion when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced in January 2025 that it would broaden the reach of expedited removal, targeting not just recent border crossers but undocumented migrants who have been in the U.S. for up to two years.
Before this controversial expansion, as reported by TNND and the Hindustan Times, expedited removal was used far more narrowly. It applied only to those stopped within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days. The Trump administration’s broadened approach triggered immediate outcry from immigrant rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which swiftly filed lawsuits challenging the legality and constitutionality of the new policy.
At the heart of Judge Cobb’s 48-page opinion is the question of due process—a foundational principle of American law. Cobb did not mince words in her criticism of the government’s defense of the expedited removal process. “In defending this skimpy process, the government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them,” she wrote. “Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.”
Judge Cobb’s ruling does not challenge the constitutionality of expedited removal itself, nor its traditional use at the border. Instead, she emphasized that her decision “merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the government must afford them due process.” She further cautioned, “Prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”
The Department of Homeland Security, for its part, has remained defiant. In a statement responding to the ruling, DHS argued that Cobb’s decision “ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” The department insisted that Trump “has a mandate to arrest and deport the worst of the worst” and asserted, “we have the law, facts, and common sense on our side.”
This legal skirmish is not the first time Judge Cobb has intervened in the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. Earlier in August 2025, Cobb temporarily blocked plans to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who had legally entered the country under humanitarian parole. In that instance, she found that DHS had overstepped its authority and that the individuals in question faced serious risks if deported too quickly.
Since May 2025, the government’s tactics have drawn further scrutiny. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have been stationed in the hallways of court buildings, ready to arrest individuals immediately after a judge dismisses their deportation cases. Once detained, these individuals often find their deportation proceedings renewed under the fast-track authority. While there is a legal avenue to halt expedited removal—namely, by filing an asylum claim—many are unaware of this right, and even those who do may be quickly removed if they fail an initial screening.
The stakes in this legal battle are undeniably high. For the Trump administration, the expansion of expedited removal represents a key strategy in fulfilling campaign promises and addressing what it describes as a crisis of illegal immigration. For immigrant rights advocates, however, the policy is a dangerous overreach that threatens fundamental constitutional protections. The ACLU and other groups argue that the process, as expanded, strips away crucial safeguards and exposes thousands to the risk of wrongful deportation.
Judge Cobb’s ruling has resonated far beyond the legal community, sparking debate among political leaders, advocacy organizations, and ordinary Americans alike. Supporters of the Trump administration’s approach contend that swift enforcement is necessary to maintain the integrity of U.S. immigration laws and deter further unauthorized entry. They point to the President’s electoral mandate and the administration’s interpretation of executive authority under the Constitution.
Opponents, meanwhile, see the court’s intervention as a vital check on executive power. They warn that sacrificing due process for the sake of expediency undermines the very principles that define American justice. As Judge Cobb herself noted, allowing the government to sidestep constitutional protections for a large class of people “would put everyone at risk.”
Legal scholars have observed that the expedited removal statute, first introduced in the late 1990s, was never intended as a tool for mass interior enforcement. Its original scope was limited to recent arrivals near the border, reflecting a balance between border security and procedural fairness. The Trump administration’s expansion of the statute to cover a vastly larger population marks a significant departure from that precedent—and, in Judge Cobb’s view, one that demands heightened judicial scrutiny.
For now, the future of expedited removal remains uncertain. The administration is expected to appeal Judge Cobb’s ruling, setting the stage for a protracted legal battle that could ultimately reach the Supreme Court. In the meantime, the temporary block means that thousands of undocumented immigrants living in the U.S. interior are, at least for the moment, spared from the threat of immediate, judge-less deportation.
As the legal and political wrangling continues, one thing is clear: the debate over immigration enforcement and constitutional rights is far from settled. The outcome of this case—and others like it—will shape the lives of countless individuals and the broader trajectory of U.S. immigration policy for years to come.