[ARCHIVED - September 2025]
One day after President Trump was inaugurated, his administration issued a new rule, effective immediately, expanding the use of expedited removal, a process by which low-level DHS officers can summarily deport certain undocumented noncitizens without an immigration court hearing or any judicial review. The rule makes eligible for expedited removal noncitizens living anywhere within the interior of the United States who have resided in the U.S. continuously for less than two years. Except for a brief period during the first Trump Administration, expedited removal (which was created in 1996) has been limited to noncitizens at ports of entry and those within 100 miles of a land border who have been in the United States less than two weeks.
Plaintiff Make the Road New York (MRNY) brought a suit against the Trump administration challenging the rule, represented by the ACLU, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and the New York Civil Liberties Union (they all brought a similar suit in 2019). MRNY argues that the rule is unlawful.
On April 18, 2025, the government filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Briefing was completed on that motion on May 21.
Around May 20, 2025, DHS began more aggressively implementing its directives around expanded expedited removal to arrest individuals after their immigration court hearings and subject them to the swift deportation process. Noncitizens would show up to routine court appearances only to be detained after DHS moved to dismiss their cases (or, in some cases, before dismissal was even granted). On June 10, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion to postpone agency action to stop the application of expanded expedited removal that puts Plaintiffs’ members and thousands of other noncitizens at imminent risk of deportation and family separation without due process. On June 24, 2025, DHS filed a memorandum in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion to postpone agency action.
On August 29, 2025, Judge Cobb granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay (pause) of Agency Action, finding Plaintiff had made a strong showing (a) the government’s expansion of expedited removal violates the due process rights of those it affects, (b) its members would be irreparably harmed if the government’s actions were not stayed, and (c) the public interest and equities were also best served by a stay. The stay will remain in effect pending further proceedings.
Technical Summary
Plaintiff alleges that the rule violates the Due Process Clause of Fifth Amendment; violates the INA (8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(7), 1225(a), (b)(1)) as being not in accordance with the law and in excess of statutory authority under the APA; is arbitrary and capricious under APA; and did not go through the required notice and comment procedures in violation of the APA.
Plaintiff seeks vacatur of the rule; declaratory relief that the rule is unconstitutional and contrary to law; and injunctive relief blocking and staying defendants from continuing to apply expedited removal to noncitizens who have been present in this country for longer than 14 days, or who have been apprehended farther than 100 miles from the border.
Latest Updates
- 08/29/2025
- 06/10/2025
- 03/22/2025
Full Timeline and Documents
- 01/22/2025
