On Friday, August 29, 2025, a sweeping decision by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., sent shockwaves through the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement apparatus. Judge Cobb, a Biden appointee, temporarily blocked the administration’s controversial expansion of expedited deportations—an aggressive policy shift that would have allowed authorities to swiftly remove undocumented migrants from anywhere in the United States if they had been in the country illegally for less than two years. The ruling marks a significant setback for President Trump’s campaign promise to ramp up removals, and it has ignited a fierce debate over the balance between immigration enforcement and the constitutional rights of migrants.
For decades, expedited removal was a tool used mostly at the U.S. border. Under the original statute, only migrants apprehended within 14 days of entry and within 100 miles of the border could be deported without a court hearing. But in January 2025, the Trump administration issued new policies to expand this process nationwide, targeting anyone unable to prove they had been in the country for more than two years—regardless of where they were found. The move was framed by the administration as a necessary step to address what it described as an “invasion” at the southern border and to fulfill President Trump’s pledge of one million deportations per year in his second term, according to The Associated Press.
Judge Cobb’s 48-page opinion did not question the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute itself or its traditional use at the border. Instead, she found the government’s expanded application to the interior of the country deeply problematic. “The Court does not cast doubt on the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute, nor on its longstanding application at the border,” Cobb wrote, as reported by Reuters. “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.”
At the heart of Cobb’s decision was the question of due process—a bedrock principle of the Fifth Amendment. She emphasized that the government’s push to prioritize speed over procedural fairness could lead to grave mistakes, including the wrongful deportation of individuals who may, in fact, have legal grounds to remain in the United States. “When it comes to people living in the interior of the country, prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process,” she noted. Cobb further warned that the administration’s approach risked relegating anyone accused of unlawful entry to a “bare-bones proceeding” with little chance to contest the government’s allegations. In her words, “By merely accusing you of entering unlawfully, the Government would deprive you of any meaningful opportunity to disprove its allegations.”
The ruling does not have an expiration date, instead indefinitely postponing the federal government’s ability to carry out the fast-paced deportations until a future court date. This pause affects not only the millions of undocumented migrants potentially subject to the expanded policy but also those who entered the country under humanitarian parole. Earlier in August, Judge Cobb had already blocked the administration’s efforts to fast-track the removal of immigrants who had been granted parole status, arguing that such a move would unfairly upend the lives of people previously authorized to remain.
The Department of Homeland Security, unsurprisingly, expressed deep frustration with the ruling. In a statement to The New York Post, a DHS official argued, “This activist judge’s ruling ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” The official insisted that the administration was simply exercising its full authority to remove those in the U.S. illegally for less than two years, adding, “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.”
Advocacy groups, on the other hand, hailed the decision as a crucial defense of constitutional rights. Make the Road New York, the immigrant advocacy group that challenged the expanded removals, argued that the government’s truncated procedures posed a “significant risk” of wrongfully affecting immigrants with legal permission to remain in the country. Judge Cobb agreed, writing that those affected “have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment.”
The stakes of the ruling are not just theoretical. The case of Kilmar Abrego, a 30-year-old migrant, has become emblematic of the perils of hasty deportations. As reported by Reuters, Abrego was wrongfully deported to El Salvador in March, despite a judge’s order prohibiting his removal to that country. He was later brought back to the United States to face criminal charges, which he denies, and his legal team has accused the administration of vindictive prosecution. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland recently extended a block on Abrego’s deportation, requiring that he remain within 200 miles of her courthouse until at least October 6, 2025, pending a hearing. Abrego’s lawyers contend that the administration’s handling of his case is part of a broader effort to expand executive power in immigration matters at the expense of due process. Abrego, who has a wife and children who are U.S. citizens, plans to seek asylum through a separate proceeding.
As the legal battle rages, the human impact is already evident. The immigrant population in the U.S. dropped by 1.4 million between January and July 2025, a figure that reflects both forced removals and voluntary departures driven by fear, according to the Pew Research Center. Deportations are at their highest level in a decade, with around 200,000 people having been removed since Trump returned to office. Meanwhile, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have been arresting migrants in courthouses after judges dismissed deportation cases, then renewing proceedings under the fast-track authority. While migrants can sometimes halt expedited removal by filing an asylum claim, many are unaware of this right or are unable to meet the initial screening requirements, as noted by The Associated Press.
The debate over expedited removal, due process, and the reach of executive authority shows no signs of abating. For now, Judge Cobb’s decision stands as a major roadblock to the Trump administration’s mass deportation ambitions, underscoring the ongoing tension between national security priorities and the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. The next chapter will unfold in the courts—and, no doubt, in the lives of thousands of families across the country.
