The Trump administration secured a major legal victory on Tuesday after a federal appeals court authorized the expansion of expedited removals across the United States, a measure that will allow authorities to remove certain immigrants without judicial authorization and without requiring them to appear before an immigration judge.
The decision, issued by a divided three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, removes one of the main legal obstacles facing President Donald Trump’s immigration strategy and restores a tool considered essential for increasing the pace of removals.
The procedure known as expedited removal allows immigration agents to order certain individuals removed from the country without going through the traditional immigration court process. For years, this authority was largely limited to migrants apprehended near the border or shortly after entering the country. However, just days after the start of his second term, Trump ordered a significant expansion of the policy’s scope.
Under the new guidelines, federal agents can apply the procedure anywhere in the United States to undocumented immigrants who cannot demonstrate that they have lived continuously in the country for at least two years. The measure had been blocked in August 2025 by a federal judge who concluded that the safeguards established by the government were insufficient to prevent errors and protect the constitutional rights of those affected.
The judge argued at the time that there was a substantial risk that individuals with the right to remain in the country could be wrongly removed because of deficiencies in the process. Her ruling cited examples of immigrants who had lived in the United States for more than two years but were nevertheless subjected to expedited removal proceedings.
The majority of the appeals court, however, reached a different conclusion. Judges Justin Walker and Neomi Rao determined that the policy provides sufficient procedural protections and that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the system deprives immigrants of adequate notice or the opportunity to respond to the allegations against them.
Walker argued that the Constitution requires informing a person of the action the government intends to take and providing an opportunity to respond, but it does not require immigration officials to provide legal advice. As he wrote, requiring officers to explain potential legal defenses “would require immigration officers to provide what amounts to legal advice.”
One of the most controversial aspects of the case was the two-year residency rule. The plaintiffs argued that many immigrants are unaware that proving continuous residence for more than two years can prevent the use of expedited removal. They also contended that officers are not required to inform individuals of that possibility during initial interviews.
Judge Robert Wilkins, the only member of the panel who dissented, shared those concerns. In his view, the system contains significant shortcomings because it does not require officers to explicitly ask how long a person has been in the United States or inform them that the information could be decisive in their case.
The Trump administration celebrated the ruling as confirmation that it had acted within the bounds of the law. Officials at the Department of Homeland Security argued that federal law has always allowed the government to use the procedure against individuals who entered the country unlawfully within the previous two years, regardless of where they were apprehended. They also insisted that the measure is necessary to strengthen immigration enforcement.
Anand Balakrishnan, lead attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in the case, said the expansion of expedited removal would subject thousands of people to an error-prone system. “The Trump administration’s push for fast-track deportations will subject people to an unfair and error-prone system,” he said, while adding that the organization is “exploring next steps.”
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition
