A federal appeals court on Tuesday cleared the way for U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration to expand a fast-track deportation process that would allow for the expedited removal of migrants who are living far away from the border. A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 to overturn a decision by a judge who in August 2025 blocked the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s move to expand who qualifies for expedited removal.
What changed
That expedited removal process has for nearly three decades been used to quickly return migrants apprehended at the border. But in January 2025, the administration expanded its scope to cover non-citizens apprehended anywhere in the United States who could not show they had been in the country for two years.
The panel, in a 2-1 vote, overturned a prior ruling by a judge who in August 2025 blocked the USCIS initiative to expand the list of people eligible for expedited removal. The expansion applies nationwide—not just to border apprehensions—and applies to any non-citizen unable to document two years of continuous U.S. residence.
Judges Justin Walker and Neomi Rao – both Trump appointees – sided with the administration. The dissent raised constitutional concerns about due process and the adequacy of screening procedures for interior enforcement.
Why it matters
Scope of expedited removal has expanded dramatically. Previously, expedited removal was largely confined to non-citizens encountered within 100 miles of a border and within 14 days of arrival. The policy now allows federal agents to rapidly remove undocumented immigrants without due process from anywhere in the US if they can’t quickly prove they’ve been in the country for more than two years.
The burden of proof is now on the non-citizen. Under this expansion, DHS can initiate expedited removal against non-citizens in the interior unless they affirmatively demonstrate two years of continuous presence. This reverses practical assumptions many practitioners relied on when advising clients about removal risk in non-border contexts.
Due process constraints are minimal. Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins objected to allowing migrants to be subjected to the fast-track deportation process without even being asked how long they have been living in the U.S., saying such a procedure “is woefully inadequate for persons encountered in the interior of the country.” Expedited removal proceedings offer no hearing before an immigration judge, only a brief screening. This is now the default path for eligible non-citizens nationwide.
The policy is now in effect. The lower court’s temporary block—which had prevented enforcement since August 2025—is lifted. DHS may resume nationwide expedited removal under the expanded criteria immediately.
Way forward
-
Document and preserve continuous residence. If your client is in the U.S. without status and lacks firm documentation of arrival before June 23, 2024, advise them that expedited removal is now a material risk nationwide. Gather contemporaneous evidence of residence: rent receipts, utility bills, tax records, employment letters, school enrollment, medical records—anything with dates.
-
Evaluate statutory stay eligibility before apprehension. Clients who may qualify for TPS, U visa, T visa, or other forms of relief should file proactively rather than wait for apprehension. Expedited removal forecloses most forms of relief if proceedings are initiated.
-
Clarify affirmative vs. defensive relief options. Expedited removal cannot be challenged in immigration court. If a client has meritorious asylum or other humanitarian claim, filing affirmatively via 8 CFR 208.2 before apprehension is now critical. Once in expedited removal, the only remedy is a federal court challenge—a much narrower avenue.
-
Advise clients on the disclosure burden. Non-citizens in expedited removal screening must affirmatively disclose continuous residence information. Train clients on what documents to carry and what to say. Failure to articulate two years of presence will result in expedited removal without a hearing.
Disclaimer
This article is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. We are a technology company, not a law firm. Immigration law is complex and changes frequently—this court ruling could be appealed, stayed, or superseded by new agency guidance or legislation. You should not rely on this summary alone when advising clients. Always verify the current status of this decision and the applicable statutes and regulations with the primary source linked above, and consult a licensed immigration attorney before making strategic decisions for your clients.