A divided U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled on Tuesday to permit the Trump administration to expand expedited deportation proceedings nationwide, upholding a policy that removes undocumented immigrants without judicial hearings, in a decision that handed the White House a major victory on its immigration agenda while drawing dissent over due process violations.
The 2–1 ruling authorizes ICE agents to deport individuals detained anywhere in the country, rather than only near the southern border, provided they cannot prove less than two years of continuous U.S. residence. Previously, the fast-track procedure was reserved for border crossers, who were typically returned to Mexico within days of capture.
RELATED: Three Dead in Montreal Shooting During Tense Police Operation
The panel’s majority dismissed the argument that the directive was unconstitutional, stating that alleged implementation errors by individual officials did not render the policy itself illegal.
In a dissenting remark, an Obama-appointed judge argued that ICE and the Department of Homeland Security had failed to disprove that the policy had already resulted in the deportation of individuals who had been in the country beyond the two-year threshold, undermining the government’s claim that the measure was narrowly applied.
Court of Appeals Upholds Trump’s Expedited Removal Policy, Threatening Due Process Protections for Immigrant NYers
“Every immigrant is entitled to due process and a chance to make their case in front of a judge and be heard in court.” @HeyItsMuradhttps://t.co/RBV2azNuCY pic.twitter.com/Hq6CsIoEiZ
— New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) (@thenyic) June 23, 2026
The ruling emerged from a lawsuit filed by Make the Road New York, which had contended that the expansion violated constitutional due process guarantees. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, announced it was reviewing potential next steps to challenge the decision.
An ACLU attorney characterized the administration’s push as forcing individuals through an unreliable and unjust system, and further warned that the court’s decision eroded the foundational right to a fair hearing before removal.
From teleSUR English via This RSS Feed.