This case is the government’s appeal of the district court’s August 1, 2025 order that stayed (paused) the three agency actions at issue to stop the application of expedited removal to paroled individuals.
On August 14, the government filed an emergency motion for a stay of the district court’s order pending appeal. In response, on August 18, the D.C. Circuit issued a partial administrative stay (pause) on the district court’s August 1 order in order to give the appellate court the opportunity to consider the government’s emergency motion. The administrative stay applied to individuals who entered on parole who have been in the United States for less than two years, but does not apply to individuals who entered on parole and have been continuously present in the United States for longer than two years. Briefing on the emergency motion concluded on August 27. On September 12, the Court of Appeals lifted the administrative stay and denied the government’s motion for a stay pending appeal, leaving in place the district court’s order in full.
Technical Summary:
This case has been related to Make the Road New York v. Huffman, 25-cv-00190 (D.D.C. filed Jan. 22, 2025). Plaintiffs challenge the application of expedited removal to parolees as violating the INA’s provisions on the scope of expedited removal, because they provide that it can only be applied to a noncitizen found inadmissible under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(6)(C) or 1182(a)(7) who “is arriving in the United States” or who has not “been admitted or paroled into the United States.” Plaintiffs argue that individuals granted parole through CBP One, CHNV Parole, and other humanitarian parole processes have been paroled into the country, and they are no longer in the act of “arriving,” so they cannot be subject to expedited removal. Plaintiffs bring an associated APA claim based on this statutory violation, and an arbitrary and capricious claim based on the agency’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for the decisions and inconsistent positions taken by the agency. Plaintiffs allege a violation of the Due Process Clause of the 5th Amendment as well.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and that the relevant memorandums, directives, and notices be vacated.
