Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration Fast-Track Deportation Policy

This ruling is a vital reminder that due process is not optional. Expanding expedited removal would have exposed thousands to potential wrongful deportation, without even the chance to make their case.

August 30, 2025 3:30 pm

Media Contact

Inga Sarda-Sorensen, ACLU, [email protected]

WASHINGTON — A federal court has blocked the Trump administration’s fast-track deportation policy.

The decision late last night stems from a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of the District of Columbia, and New York Civil Liberties Union, which are suing the Trump administration over the policy on behalf of Make the Road New York. The case is Make the Road New York v. Noem.

The lawsuit and ruling come as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) stakes out immigration courthouses and arrests people at their scheduled appointments and then attempts to quickly deport them without any due process. Due process requires they get a fair hearing, which this Trump rule strips from them.

The court granted the groups’ request to halt the policy as the case is litigated.

The following is reaction to the ruling:

“The Trump administration’s expansion of fast-track deportations has subjected thousands of people to an unfair, arbitrary, and error-prone system. The court’s decision reaffirms the fundamental principle that people receive due process when the government seeks to deport them or their families,” said Anand Balakrishnan, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project and lead counsel.

“We are glad the judge recognized the immense due-process problems posed by this administration’s reckless expansion of expedited removal. This policy has inflicted enormous harms on MRNY’s members and community, and it has to stop. We will continue to defend our communities from unconstitutional attacks levied by this administration, because we are here to stay,” said Harold Solis, co-legal director of Make the Road New York.

“This ruling is a vital reminder that due process is not optional. Expanding expedited removal would have exposed thousands to potential wrongful deportation, without even the chance to make their case. We welcome the court’s decision to block this dangerous policy. If the government can sidestep people’s due process rights, it sets a dangerous precedent that puts everyone’s rights at risk,” said Aditi Shah, staff attorney with the ACLU of the District of Columbia.

“This decision rightly rejects the Trump administration’s extremist, unjust policy of fast-tracking mass deportations without due process,” said Donna Lieberman, executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union. “This cruel policy tried to deny hundreds of thousands of people — parents, workers, friends, and loved ones — their constitutional right to a fair hearing, putting them at risk of wrongful deportation. Everyone deserves a fair day in court when their future is on the line.”

The ruling is here.

Related Issues

Immigrants' Rights Due Process/Procedural Rights View All Issues

Related Content

Court Case
Jul 29, 2026
Placeholder image
  • Immigrants' Rights

MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK V. NOEM (CHALLENGING “EXPEDITED REMOVAL” OF IMMIGRANTS)

The day after Donald Trump’s inauguration, his administration announced a new plan to massively expand fast-track deportation (called “expedited removal”) of undocumented immigrants without a fair legal process. The next day (January 22, 2025) we filed suit challenging that plan, together with the National ACLU and the New York Civil Liberties Union. The plaintiff in the lawsuit is Make the Road New York, an organization that serves immigrant communities in that state. The policy targets undocumented immigrants nationwide. People apprehended by ICE who cannot prove that they are U.S. citizens, or that they have permission to be in the United States, or that they have been in the country continuously for at least two years, can be summarily deported. Under this rule, immigrants who may have been integrated into our communities would get less due process contesting their deportation than they would contesting a traffic ticket. Multiple U.S. citizens have been erroneously deported under the previous, much more limited version of “expedited removal,” because they have been unable to prove their status to the satisfaction of an immigration officer. The lawsuit contends that such people are entitled to due process, meaning a fair opportunity to consult with counsel and to gather and present evidence showing that they are not subject to removal, including a fair opportunity to apply for asylum or other relief. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. In March, we filed an amended complaint with updated facts about the Trump administration’s new policies. The government filed a motion to dismiss the case, which we opposed, and also asked the court to rule on that motion before allowing us to seek even temporary relief against the program. The court denied the latter request, and on June 10 we filed our motion to postpone the implementation of the new program. After the government opposed that motion and we replied, the court heard argument on July 9, 2025. On August 29, 2025, the court granted our motion and stayed (enjoined) the new policies. On September 2, the government appealed, and on September 9 filed a motion to stay the district court’s order pending appeal. On September 15 we filed our opposition and on September 19 the government replied. The court of appeals heard oral argument on October 6, and on November 22, in opinions totaling 100 pages, denied the government’s motion for a stay. Meanwhile, briefs were filed on the merits, and the court of appeals held argument on December 9, 2025. On June 23, 2026, the court of appeals reversed, ruling that the government is not required “to instruct individuals on available defenses” against deportation. Judge Wilkins dissented, concluding that the failure to ask or advise about the two-year limit on the use of expedited removal violates due process. On July 27 we filed a petition for rehearing en banc, asking the full court to review the case.