U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Trump Administration's Expanded Fast-Track Deportation Policy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 on Tuesday, June 23, 2026, to uphold the Trump administration's expansion of the expedited removal process for undocumented immigrants. The decision allows the Department of Homeland Security to deport non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the United States who cannot demonstrate continuous residence in the country for two years, without requiring a hearing before an immigration judge.

The policy, initially implemented on January 21, 2025, represents a significant expansion of the expedited removal program, which had been limited for nearly three decades to migrants apprehended within 100 miles of a land border and within 14 days of entry. The Trump administration's move mirrors a similar policy adopted in 2019, which was subsequently rescinded by the Biden administration. The expansion was challenged by the immigrant rights advocacy group Make the Road New York, which argued the policy violated constitutional due process protections.

In August 2025, U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb had blocked enforcement of the expanded policy, finding it violated migrants' due process rights. However, the appeals court panel, led by Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker, disagreed. Walker's majority opinion found that the Trump administration was authorized to expand "expedited removal to the maximum extent allowed by Congress." He argued that migrants are provided notice of expedited removal placement and receive an opportunity to object, including by demonstrating their two-year continuous presence. Judge Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee, joined the majority opinion.

Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented from the ruling. Wilkins contended that allowing migrants to be subjected to fast-track deportation without being questioned about their length of U.S. residence was inadequate, particularly for individuals encountered within the country's interior. He argued the procedure failed to provide meaningful due process protections.

The Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival issued a statement celebrating the ruling as vindication of the administration's interpretation of immigration law. The ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project criticized the decision, asserting it "undermines the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them" and stated the organization is exploring next steps, potentially including further legal challenges.