A divided appeals court on Monday reversed a Biden-appointed judge and cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport undocumented immigrants nationwide without immigration court hearings.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 on June 23 to reinstate the Trump administration's expanded use of expedited removal, the statutory process that allows DHS to deport someone without first putting them before an immigration judge. The ruling throws out an August 2025 decision by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee, who found that challengers had made a "strong showing" that the expansion trampled due process rights. Two Trump-appointed judges, Justin Walker and Neomi Rao, formed the majority. Obama-appointed Judge Robert Wilkins dissented in part.
The administration's January 2025 expansion, announced the day Trump was inaugurated, stripped every geographic restriction from expedited removal that had accumulated over two decades. Previously the fast-track process applied mainly to migrants caught within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entry, or to those arriving by sea. Trump's Federal Register notice, published January 21, 2025, made the policy nationwide and removed the 14-day entry window, making any undocumented immigrant who cannot prove at least two continuous years of U.S. residency eligible for removal without a hearing.
The practical scope is enormous. The undocumented population inside the United States has been estimated in the millions, and the two-year residency threshold is the only off-ramp. Anyone who arrived after January 2023 and cannot document earlier presence is now subject to the accelerated process. DHS does not need a judge's order, only an immigration officer's determination that the person is removable and has not met the residency bar.
Judge Cobb had blocked the policy on the theory that the administration had not built in enough procedural safeguards to catch wrongful deportations, particularly for asylum seekers and U.S. citizens who might be swept up in enforcement actions. The D.C. Circuit majority disagreed, finding that the administration had the statutory authority under federal immigration law to designate the classes of aliens subject to expedited removal and that Cobb's injunction went too far. Walker's opinion is the controlling one; Rao joined his reasoning in full.
The ACLU and other groups that brought the underlying challenge immediately signaled they would press for en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit, which if granted would pause the ruling's effect pending a vote of all active judges on the court. An en banc loss for the challengers would almost certainly push the case to the Supreme Court, which the Trump administration appeared prepared to welcome. The Justice Department had already argued before Cobb that Congress explicitly delegated expedited removal authority to the executive branch with minimal judicial oversight, a statutory argument the high court has never squarely resolved.
A pattern on the bench
The ruling fits a pattern that has defined immigration litigation in the first year of Trump's second term: lower court judges, many of them appointed by Democratic presidents, issue nationwide blocks on enforcement policies; appeals courts with Republican-appointed majorities reverse them. The Ninth Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have each seen versions of this dynamic play out on border issues in recent months.
Walker's majority here is notable because the D.C. Circuit is not typically where immigration enforcement fights are resolved. That the case landed there is partly a result of forum shopping by the challengers, who filed in a district friendly to their legal theory and got Cobb's block out of it. The reversal removes that win and hands the administration a circuit-level precedent it can cite in parallel litigation across the country.
If the full D.C. Circuit grants en banc review, the administration will need to hold a majority of the court's active judges, which currently leans Democratic. That path is uncertain. What is less uncertain is DHS's intention to move fast: the agency paused formal expedited removal proceedings under the expanded authority while Cobb's injunction was in place, and enforcement officials were widely expected to restart operations within days of the circuit court's order. The question now is how quickly the machinery accelerates, and whether another court steps in before the Supreme Court has its say.
Also read: Clarence Thomas writes 6-3 ruling giving DHS power to block criminal green card holders • ICE Nabs Illinois Teacher Who Allegedly Drove Tren de Aragua Killers to Chicago Party • The judge who killed the DOJ's Minnesota probe donated to immigrant legal aid groups for years
