On Friday, August 29, 2025, a major legal and political development unfolded in Washington, D.C., as U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb issued a sweeping order halting the Trump administration’s ambitious expansion of fast-track deportations across the United States. This ruling, which took immediate effect, marks a significant setback for President Donald Trump’s ongoing campaign to accelerate the removal of undocumented immigrants, particularly those apprehended far from the nation’s borders.
For nearly three decades, the expedited removal process—a mechanism allowing federal immigration officials to rapidly deport certain migrants without a court hearing—had been largely confined to those caught within 100 miles of a U.S. land border and who had been in the country for less than two weeks. But as reported by Reuters and Politico, the Trump administration, after returning to office in January 2025, revived and broadened a policy first implemented in 2019. The new directive extended expedited removal to any non-citizen apprehended anywhere in the U.S. who could not prove two years of continuous presence, exposing millions more migrants to the risk of rapid expulsion.
Immigrant rights groups quickly challenged the policy, arguing that it trampled on the constitutional due process rights of people who, in many cases, had established lives deep within the country’s interior. Judge Cobb, a Biden appointee based in Washington, D.C., agreed, siding with the plaintiffs and indefinitely pausing both the January 2025 directive and the guidance issued to implement it.
In her sharply worded opinion, Cobb emphasized the fundamental liberty interests at stake. “That means that they have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment,” she wrote, according to Reuters. Cobb further explained, “When it exponentially expanded the population subject to expedited removal, the Government did not, however, in any way adapt its procedures to this new group of people.”
The judge was unsparing in her criticism of the administration’s approach. Prioritizing speed above all else, she warned, “will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.” She described the government’s assertion that long-term residents have no due process rights as “startling” and “extraordinary.” As Politico noted, Cobb’s ruling underscored the risk that immigrants entitled to remain in the U.S. could be hustled out of the country without adequate opportunity to contest their removal.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responded forcefully, asserting that the ruling ignored the President’s clear legal authorities. In a statement cited by multiple outlets, DHS argued, “President Trump has a mandate to arrest and deport the worst of the worst. We have the law, facts, and common sense on our side.” The department further maintained that it was “exercising its full authority under federal law by placing illegal aliens who have been here for less than two years into expedited removal.”
Judge Cobb, however, was unmoved by the administration’s request to pause her ruling while it prepared an appeal. She denied the government’s plea for a two-week stay, meaning her order took effect immediately. The practical impact was to suspend the use of the expanded expedited removal policy nationwide, at least for the time being.
Friday’s decision was not the first time in August that Judge Cobb had intervened to block Trump-era immigration enforcement tactics. Earlier in the month, she halted the fast-tracking of deportations for potentially hundreds of thousands of immigrants who had been paroled into the United States through humanitarian programs established under President Joe Biden. This pattern of judicial pushback has complicated the Trump administration’s broader efforts to ramp up mass deportations and has drawn sharp criticism from supporters of the President’s hardline immigration agenda.
The policy at the center of this legal battle was a cornerstone of Trump’s renewed focus on immigration enforcement since returning to the White House. As CBS News and The Washington Post reported, the administration’s expanded use of expedited removal had enabled federal agents to arrest and deport asylum-seekers at courthouses and other locations far from the border, bypassing the traditional immigration court process unless the detainee claimed asylum and passed an initial screening interview with an asylum officer.
Before the January 2025 expansion, expedited removal was a tool used sparingly—limited to recent arrivals near the border. The Trump administration’s move dramatically increased the pool of migrants subject to summary deportation, raising alarm among immigrant advocates and legal scholars. They argued that many individuals swept up in the process had established deep roots in their communities and deserved a meaningful opportunity to contest their removal before an immigration judge.
Judge Cobb’s ruling made clear that the longstanding application of expedited removal at the border was not in question. “In so holding, the Court does not cast doubt on the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute, nor on its longstanding application at the border,” she wrote. “It 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. The procedures currently in place fall short.”
Legal experts suggest that the ruling is likely to be appealed, potentially setting up a high-stakes showdown in higher courts over the limits of executive authority in immigration enforcement. The administration’s supporters argue that the President has broad discretion under Article II of the Constitution and federal law to enforce immigration statutes as he sees fit, especially in the name of national security and public safety. Critics counter that constitutional protections, including the right to due process, cannot be cast aside simply for the sake of administrative efficiency.
The broader political context is impossible to ignore. Trump’s project of mass deportations has inspired both fervent support and fierce opposition, not just in Washington but across the country. Some lawmakers have sought to codify the President’s approach, while others have denounced what they see as a dangerous erosion of civil liberties. The debate over expedited removal and due process for immigrants has become a flashpoint in the larger struggle over America’s identity and values.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of millions of undocumented immigrants hangs in the balance. For now, Judge Cobb’s ruling stands as a reminder that, even in the face of sweeping executive action, the courts remain a powerful check on the government’s ability to curtail fundamental rights.
