Judges Block Trump From Deporting Anyone Without a Hearing

In early 2025, shortly after President Donald Trump's inauguration for his second term, the administration revived and expanded an expedited removal policy originally implemented in 2019 during his first term. This policy, codified under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), allows immigration officers to deport noncitizens without a full hearing if they are deemed inadmissible upon arrival or within 100 air miles of the U.S. border and cannot establish credible fear of persecution. The revived policy broadened its scope dramatically: it authorized expedited removals for any noncitizen anywhere in the United States who had been present for less than two years, regardless of proximity to the border, provided they lacked valid entry documents or made material misrepresentations.

Immigrant rights organizations, including Make the Road New York (a New York-based advocacy group representing low-income immigrant communities), along with co-plaintiffs such as the National Immigration Law Center and affected individuals, challenged the policy in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. They argued it violated due process under the Fifth Amendment by denying migrants meaningful opportunities for credible fear interviews and hearings, potentially leading to refoulement (return to harm) without judicial review. Plaintiffs presented evidence of real-world harms, including cases of migrants in interior states (e.g., New York and Texas) facing rapid detention and deportation without access to counsel or asylum screenings.

In August 2025, District Judge Jia Cobb granted a preliminary injunction, halting the policy's nationwide implementation. She found plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits, citing inadequate procedural safeguards and the policy's overreach beyond statutory limits. The Trump administration immediately appealed to the D.C. Circuit and sought an emergency stay to resume enforcement while litigating the merits.

Issues

The core issue on appeal was whether the D.C. Circuit should grant the government's motion for a stay pending appeal of Judge Cobb's preliminary injunction. To obtain a stay, the government bore the burden of demonstrating: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits of its appeal; (2) irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) that the balance of equities favored it; and (4) that the public interest supported immediate enforcement (per Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)). Substantively, the case turned on statutory interpretation of the INA's expedited removal provisions and constitutional due process requirements. Plaintiffs contended the policy's nationwide expansion exceeded congressional intent, which historically limited it to border areas to balance efficiency with rights protections. The government argued the expansion was a lawful exercise of executive discretion amid a "border crisis," with sufficient internal safeguards like credible fear screenings to mitigate due process risks.

Relevant statutes and precedents

· 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) of INA

· Ruling in Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009)

Decision

In a 2-1 ruling issued on November 22, 2025, the D.C. Circuit denied the government's emergency motion for a stay. Judges Millett and Childs held that the administration failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits, the lynchpin of the stay analysis. The panel upheld Judge Cobb's injunction in its entirety, maintaining the nationwide block on the expanded policy. It permitted a narrow carve-out for the government to refine "credible fear" screening procedures during the appeal but rejected broader relief. The decision was unpublished but marked as precedential for stay motions in immigration enforcement cases. Judge Rao dissented, arguing the injunction constituted "impermissible judicial interference" in executive border security and that the government's procedures adequately protected against erroneous removals.

Analysis of the Decision

This ruling represents a significant judicial check on the Trump administration's aggressive immigration agenda, reinforcing due process as a bulwark against expansive executive deportation powers. By denying the stay, the panel effectively paused the policy's implementation for months, potentially shielding thousands of interior migrants—many long-term residents—from summary expulsion. The majority's analysis emphasized statutory fidelity: it critiqued the policy's "unbounded geographic scope" as diverging from the INA's text, which ties expedited removal to "arrival" contexts, and highlighted empirical evidence of screening failures (e.g., low asylum grant rates in expedited proceedings, per DHS data). This echoes prior precedents like Make the Road New York v. Wolf (2d Cir. 2020), which struck down a similar 2019 expansion for procedural inadequacies.

The decision's implications extend beyond this case. It signals appellate courts' wariness of policies risking non-refoulement violations under international norms (e.g., 1951 Refugee Convention obligations incorporated via the INA), potentially influencing parallel challenges in other circuits. For immigrants' rights, it preserves access to bond hearings and asylum merits reviews, reducing family separations and erroneous deportations. However, Rao's dissent—criticizing "activist judging" and urging deference to executive expertise—foreshadows ideological divides, especially if appealed to the Supreme Court, where a conservative majority might reverse on Chevron-like grounds (post-Loper Bright, deference is curtailed but national security claims persist). Overall, the ruling bolsters judicial oversight in immigration, aligning with a trend of courts curbing "fast-track" mechanisms amid enforcement surges, but it leaves the merits appeal unresolved, with briefing slated for early 2026.

Background of judges:

Judge Patricia A. Millett was nominated by President Barack Obama on June 4, 2013, to fill the vacancy left by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, who ascended to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2005.

Judge J. Michelle Childs was nominated by President Joe Biden on January 10, 2022, to fill the vacancy created by Judge Merrick B. Garland's elevation to U.S. Attorney General in March 2021.

Citation: Trump Admin. v. Make the Road New York, No. 25-5320 (D.C. Cir. Nov. 22, 2025) (unpublished).

Link to access the decision: https://media.cadc.uscourts.gov/orders/docs/2025/11/25-5320CHSN.pdf

Subsequent Developments

Following the D.C. Circuit's denial of the stay on November 22, 2025, oral arguments on the merits of the appeal were held on December 9,2025, before Judges Millett, Rao, and Childs.

On December 19, 2025, Make the Road New York filed a related lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:25-cv-04455), challenging additional guidance documents issued by the Trump administration in October 2025 and other undisclosed materials related to the expedited removal expansion. This new suit argues that the guidance fails to provide adequate due process and exceeds statutory authority, building on the original challenge.

On January 29, 2026, the government filed a renewed motion to stay the preliminary injunction pending the appeal's resolution, citing ongoing irreparable harm to enforcement efforts. Plaintiffs opposed the motion on February 9, 2026, emphasizing the continued risk of wrongful deportations. The government filed a reply on February 17, 2026, with a corrected version submitted on February 18, 2026.

As of February 28, 2026, the D.C. Circuit has not issued a decision on the merits of the appeal, and the renewed stay motion remains pending. No appeal to the Supreme Court has been filed in this case, though the ruling has been referenced in related immigration litigation before the high court. The nationwide injunction against the expanded expedited removal policy continues to hold, limiting the administration's ability to implement the policy during ongoing proceedings.