On August 29, 2025, a federal judge in Washington, D.C. delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s ambitious immigration enforcement agenda, halting its efforts to dramatically expand the use of expedited deportations throughout the United States. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb, temporarily blocks a January policy that allowed federal authorities to rapidly remove undocumented immigrants detained anywhere in the country—without a court hearing—if they had been present in the U.S. for less than two years.
This policy shift marked a major departure from the long-standing application of expedited removal, which had previously been limited to migrants apprehended within 100 miles of the border and who had arrived in the country less than 14 days prior. According to The Washington Post, Judge Cobb’s 48-page opinion emphasized that the newly targeted group—people living deep within the U.S. interior—have a substantial liberty interest in remaining in the country and therefore must be afforded due process protections under the Fifth Amendment.
“The problem, though, is that unlike the group of people who have traditionally been subject to expedited removal—those detained at or near the border shortly after crossing—the group of people the government is now subjecting to expedited removal have long since entered our country,” Cobb wrote. “That means that they have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment.” (The Washington Post)
The Trump administration’s expansion, announced on January 21, 2025, was intended to accelerate the removal of undocumented immigrants, supporting President Donald Trump’s campaign vow to carry out the largest domestic deportation operation in U.S. history. The administration set an ambitious goal of 3,000 immigration arrests per day, according to CNN, resulting in arrests not only at border crossings but also at immigration court hearings and workplaces.
However, Judge Cobb found that the policy’s emphasis on speed over process risked sweeping up individuals who were ineligible for expedited removal—namely, those who had been in the U.S. for more than two years, as well as asylum seekers and immigrants granted parole status. In her ruling, Cobb noted, “The expedited removal process hardly affords individuals any opportunity, let alone a ‘meaningful’ one, to demonstrate that they have been present in the United States for two years.” She added that while such a streamlined process might not create a huge risk of error at the border, “it creates an intolerable risk when expedited removal is deployed throughout the United States.” (CNN)
Expedited removal, established by Congress in 1996 to curb illegal immigration, allows federal authorities to deport individuals without a hearing before an immigration judge. Migrants may request asylum from immigration officers if they fear persecution in their home countries, but if denied, their only recourse is a brief review by an immigration judge. This mechanism has been a hallmark of Trump’s immigration enforcement strategy, as noted by Fox News, with the administration pressuring immigration authorities to ramp up deportations and quickly remove illegal immigrants.
Yet, the expansion of this tool into the U.S. interior proved controversial. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed suit on behalf of Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights group, arguing that the policy violated due process rights by not providing meaningful notice or an opportunity to contest removal. Judge Cobb agreed, concluding that the government’s procedures fell short of constitutional requirements. She wrote, “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. Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.” (The Washington Post)
While Cobb’s decision does not question the constitutionality of expedited removal itself or its traditional use at the border, it draws a clear line when it comes to applying the policy to a “huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal.” The ruling allows the Trump administration to continue using expedited removal for migrants detained near the border under the previous rules, but blocks its use against those who have established lives deeper within the U.S.
The judge also specifically prevented the administration from using expedited removal against immigrants granted parole status, a group that includes individuals legally admitted under humanitarian grounds. Earlier in August, Cobb had temporarily blocked the rapid deportation of such immigrants at ports of entry, a move with potential implications for hundreds of thousands of people, according to Fox News.
The Department of Homeland Security and Make the Road New York did not immediately respond to requests for comment following the ruling. The indefinite stay will remain in place pending further proceedings in the case, leaving the fate of the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans in limbo.
The stakes are high. President Trump has repeatedly promised to deport 1 million immigrants during his first year in office, relying on expedited removal as a key tool for swift enforcement. The ability to bypass court hearings was seen as essential for meeting these ambitious targets. According to a report from the Migration Policy Institute cited by CNN, a previous attempt to expand expedited removal during Trump’s first administration was initially blocked by the courts but ultimately allowed to go into effect in October 2020. However, only 17 foreign nationals were removed under the policy before President Joe Biden rescinded it upon taking office in January 2021.
Legal experts and immigrant advocates have long warned that the expansion of expedited removal could lead to the wrongful deportation of individuals with legitimate claims to remain in the U.S., including asylum seekers and those with deep roots in American communities. Judge Cobb’s ruling echoed these concerns, noting that the policy “creates a significant risk of erroneous removal” and that most noncitizens targeted by the expansion have been present in the country for more than two years.
For now, the Trump administration’s efforts to broaden the reach of fast-track deportations have been stymied by the courts. The ruling is a major victory for civil rights groups and immigrant advocates, who have argued that due process is a fundamental American value that must not be sacrificed—even in the name of immigration enforcement.
As the legal battle continues, the outcome will shape not only the future of U.S. immigration policy but also the lives of thousands of people who call America home. The nation now waits to see whether the courts will uphold the delicate balance between government authority and individual rights that has long defined the U.S. immigration system.
