U.S. judge halts Trump’s expedited deportation policy

In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, a federal judge has issued a ruling to halt the expansion of a fast-track deportation policy. The decision, made by U.S. District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, temporarily blocks a policy that would have allowed immigration officers to deport undocumented immigrants without a court hearing if they could not prove they had been in the U.S. continuously for at least two years.

The expedited removal policy, introduced in July 2019, was a major shift in immigration enforcement. Previously, fast-track deportations were only applied to individuals caught within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the country for less than two weeks. The Trump administration sought to extend this process nationwide, giving immigration authorities the power to arrest and deport individuals anywhere in the U.S. without judicial review, provided they met certain criteria.

However, Judge Jackson ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) failed to follow proper legal procedures in implementing the expanded policy. Specifically, she said the administration did not provide sufficient notice or opportunity for public comment before the policy was enacted—an essential requirement under the Administrative Procedure Act.

In her ruling, Judge Jackson emphasized that such a sweeping change to immigration enforcement warranted a more thorough and transparent process. She noted the significant implications for due process rights and highlighted the potential for wrongful deportations if individuals were not given a chance to prove their eligibility to remain in the country.

“The government cannot dispense with the process required by law simply because it believes it will serve enforcement goals more efficiently,” she wrote in her opinion.

The lawsuit challenging the policy was brought by several immigrant advocacy groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which praised the judge’s decision. Plaintiffs in the case argued that the policy put thousands of people at risk of being deported without fair consideration of their individual circumstances.

“This ruling is a victory for the rule of law and for the rights of people who have made their lives in this country,” said Anand Balakrishnan, an attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “The administration cannot simply ignore procedural requirements and trample on constitutional protections.”

The Trump administration had defended the policy as a necessary step to reduce the backlog in immigration courts and to discourage unauthorized immigration. DHS officials claimed that the expansion of expedited removals would help speed up deportations and reduce costs by bypassing lengthy legal proceedings.

Following the judge’s ruling, DHS expressed disappointment and stated it was reviewing the decision to determine the next steps. A spokesperson for the department said, “The policy was designed to efficiently enforce immigration laws already on the books, and we will continue to pursue all legal avenues to address the ongoing crisis at our southern border.”

The ruling comes amid broader debates over immigration policy during the Trump presidency, which saw a number of controversial measures aimed at limiting both legal and illegal immigration. These included family separation at the border, the travel ban targeting predominantly Muslim countries, and efforts to end protections for Dreamers under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

Immigration advocates have argued that many of the administration’s policies prioritized enforcement over fairness and due process. The halting of the fast-track deportation expansion is seen as part of a broader judicial pushback against executive overreach in immigration matters.

While the case continues to move through the courts, the ruling means that immigration officers must revert to previous procedures and cannot use the expanded expedited removal powers—at least for now.

As legal challenges unfold, the debate over immigration enforcement and executive authority remains a contentious issue in the national discourse.