D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals Reinstates Nationwide Expedited Removal Policy

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on June 23, 2026, vacated a district court stay and reinstated the Trump administration’s expansion of expedited removal to noncitizens encountered anywhere in the United States who cannot demonstrate two years of continuous physical presence. The 2-1 ruling in Make the Road New York v. Noem clears the way for immigration officers to order swift deportations without a hearing before an immigration judge for eligible individuals.

Expedited removal authority dates to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. Under the statute, designated aliens who are inadmissible and cannot establish the required period of continuous presence face removal on the decision of a Department of Homeland Security officer. Historically, the process applied primarily near the border within a short time after entry. On January 21, 2025, DHS issued a Federal Register notice expanding the designation nationwide to the maximum extent permitted by Congress. The policy covers noncitizens who have not been admitted or paroled, lack valid entry documents or procured admission through fraud or misrepresentation, and cannot prove two years of continuous U.S. presence.

The expansion formed part of broader executive actions directing aggressive enforcement of immigration laws. Officials described the prior geographic and temporal limits as administrative choices rather than statutory mandates. The process allows removal in a matter of hours or days, bypassing regular removal proceedings that can take months or years.

Immigrant advocacy groups, including Make the Road New York and represented in part by the ACLU, challenged the policy in federal district court. U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb issued a stay in August 2025, concluding that the expansion likely violated due process by denying individuals with longer U.S. ties a meaningful opportunity to be heard. The district court found that those encountered in the interior merited greater procedural protections than recent border crossers.

The D.C. Circuit panel reversed that stay. Judge Justin Walker, writing for the majority, held that Congress delegated broad discretion to the Secretary of Homeland Security to designate classes of aliens for expedited removal. The court concluded that the administrative designation fell within that unreviewable authority and that the statutory procedures satisfied due process requirements. The majority emphasized that the speed and limited review contemplated by the statute are features, not flaws, of the expedited framework. Judge Neomi Rao joined significant portions of the opinion.

Judge Robert Wilkins dissented in part. He argued that the procedures are inadequate for individuals encountered in the interior of the country and expressed concern over evidence suggesting some deportations involved people present longer than two years. The dissent viewed the lack of individualized inquiry into length of presence as insufficient protection.

Plaintiffs indicated they may seek en banc review by the full D.C. Circuit or petition the Supreme Court. In the interim, DHS can resume nationwide application of the expanded expedited removal authority. A related challenge to the specific forms and advisals used during the process remains pending in district court.

The ruling restores a key enforcement tool for prioritizing the removal of recent unlawful entrants and others unable to establish long-term lawful presence. Supporters of the policy note that it aligns with congressional intent to streamline removal of inadmissible aliens and reduces strain on immigration courts facing significant backlogs. Critics, including the plaintiffs, maintain that the process risks erroneous removals and limits access to asylum or other relief claims.

The decision comes as the administration continues efforts to increase interior and border enforcement. Expedited removal now applies more broadly, enabling officers to act on individuals who cannot affirmatively prove eligibility to remain. Implementation guidance directs prioritization consistent with overall enforcement priorities.

The D.C. Circuit’s action underscores judicial deference to executive discretion in immigration enforcement where Congress has granted explicit authority. The policy remains subject to further legal challenges, but the immediate block on nationwide expedited removal has been lifted.