A federal appeals court just cut through lower-court obstruction and handed the Trump administration a rare win for national sovereignty, ruling that the government can resume fast-track deportations of illegal aliens nationwide — not just at the border.
This matters because for years, open-borders advocacy groups and sympathetic district judges have worked to paralyze immigration enforcement that Congress explicitly authorized. The D.C. Circuit's 2-1 decision on Tuesday restores the executive branch's authority to apply expedited removal to its full statutory limit — covering any illegal alien apprehended anywhere in the country who cannot prove continuous presence for at least two years.
The ruling overturns an August 2025 order by U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb, who blocked the policy at the request of the immigrant rights group Make the Road New York. Cobb claimed the expansion violated due process and risked wrongful detentions. The D.C. Circuit disagreed.
Writing for the majority, Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, made it plain: Congress delegated to the executive branch the authority to decide which migrants qualify for expedited removal, and the Trump administration was simply exercising that authority to its maximum extent. "For many years, while some were designated, others were not," Walker wrote. "But that changed in January 2025 when the executive expanded expedited removal to the maximum extent allowed by Congress."
Walker also rejected the demand that the government must inform those arrested how they might avoid expedited removal — such as by proving two years of continuous presence. "It is not a requirement that the government explain how the individual might prevail," he wrote. His opinion was joined by Judge Neomi Rao, also a Trump appointee.
Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented, objecting that migrants could be subjected to fast-track deportation without even being asked how long they have been living in the United States — a procedure he called "woefully inadequate for persons encountered in the interior of the country."
DHS General Counsel James Percival celebrated the ruling, saying it "vindicated our decision to apply the law as written." Make the Road's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.
The New York Times framed the policy as one that could "potentially remove millions of people without immigration hearings," emphasizing due process concerns — but omitted that the process Congress created specifically allows for exactly this kind of streamlined removal. The Guardian, meanwhile, buried the statutory authority and played up the dissent's complaint that the procedure is inadequate for people caught in the interior.
The policy mirrors one the first Trump administration adopted in 2019, which the Biden administration later rescinded. That revolving-door pattern — enforce, rescind, re-enforce — is the bipartisan failure that keeps the border in permanent crisis while both parties fundraise off the chaos.
The rule of law prevailed Tuesday. But Make the Road and its allies have forum-shopped before, and they will do it again. One ruling from one appellate panel does not fix a system where a single district judge can freeze nationwide enforcement for a year. The question is whether this administration can hold the line — or whether the same activist networks will find another compliant judge by tomorrow morning.
