Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Expansion of Expedited Removals, Citing Due Process Violations
Washington, D.C. – August 30, 2025 – A federal judge delivered a significant setback to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy on Friday, issuing a temporary nationwide block on the expanded use of expedited removals for undocumented migrants apprehended anywhere in the United States. U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb ruled that the policy, which allows for rapid deportations without a hearing before an immigration judge, violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections for non-citizens who have been in the country for more than two years. The decision, stemming from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and immigrant rights groups, halts a key component of President Donald Trump’s pledge to conduct 1 million deportations annually during his second term.
The ruling applies immediately and nationwide, suspending the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) January directive that broadened expedited removal beyond its traditional scope. Prior to the expansion, the process was limited to migrants caught within 100 miles of the border who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days. Under the new policy, it targeted any undocumented individual unable to prove two years of continuous presence, potentially affecting millions living in the country’s interior. Judge Cobb, a Biden appointee, emphasized in her 48-page opinion that while the statute itself is constitutional for border cases, its application to long-term residents requires fuller procedural safeguards to prevent erroneous removals.
Due Process at the Heart of the Decision
Cobb’s opinion sharply criticized the administration’s defense of the “skimpy process,” quoting government arguments that undocumented entrants deserve no constitutional protections beyond what Congress provides. “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,” she wrote. The judge clarified that her order does not challenge the law’s validity at the border but mandates due process for interior enforcement, warning that “prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”
This is the second major injunction from Cobb against the administration’s deportation efforts in recent weeks. Earlier this month, she blocked the fast-track removal of immigrants admitted under Biden-era humanitarian parole programs, ruling that DHS exceeded its authority and that the affected individuals—potentially hundreds of thousands—faced “perils that outweigh any harm from ‘pressing pause'” on the policy. In both cases, the judge highlighted the risks to vulnerable populations, including those eligible for asylum or other relief who might be overlooked in rushed proceedings.
The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU on behalf of Make the Road New York and other advocacy groups, who argued that the expansion has led to aggressive tactics, such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arresting individuals in immigration court hallways after case dismissals. Since May, ICE has ramped up interior enforcement, including workplace raids and operations targeting alleged criminals, in line with Trump’s campaign promises for a “massive deportation operation.”
Administration’s Response and Broader Immigration Context
DHS officials expressed frustration with the ruling, with one spokesperson stating it undermines the president’s mandate to enforce immigration laws and remove “the worst of the worst.” The administration has appealed similar decisions in the past, and legal experts anticipate this case will escalate to higher courts, potentially reaching the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has often favored executive authority on immigration matters. Trump, who set a goal of 1 million annual deportations upon taking office in January 2025, has invoked additional tools like the Alien Enemies Act for targeted removals of gang members and tightened visa policies for students and media.
The expedited removal process, enacted under a 1996 law, has been a flashpoint in immigration debates. During Trump’s first term, a similar nationwide expansion in 2019 was attempted but later rescinded by the Biden administration amid legal challenges. Advocates for the policy argue it enhances border security and public safety by streamlining removals of recent arrivals and criminals. Critics, including the ACLU, contend it erodes asylum rights and exposes families and long-term residents to summary expulsion without a chance to present their cases.
This ruling comes amid heightened migration pressures at the U.S. border, with encounters rising in recent months. Immigrant rights organizations hailed the decision as a victory for constitutional protections, with one ACLU attorney noting it prevents “a return to the dangers many fled.” Meanwhile, supporters of stricter enforcement view it as judicial overreach impeding national security efforts.
Social media reactions have been polarized, with discussions on X highlighting the tension between executive power and judicial oversight. As the legal battle unfolds, the block provides temporary relief to affected communities but underscores the ongoing clashes in Trump’s immigration agenda.
Sources: NPR, Associated Press, ACLU Filings, Various Public Radio Affiliates