Related videos:
A federal judge in Washington D.C., Jia M. Cobb, temporarily blocked the expansion of the so-called expedited deportations that the Donald Trump administration aimed to implement for undocumented immigrants detained far from the border.
The ruling, consisting of 48 pages, represents a significant setback for the mass deportation plans promoted by the president and underscores that the government cannot bypass the due process that protects every individual under the U.S. Constitution.
Cobb was unequivocal in questioning the government's argument, which defended the practice by claiming that those who entered the country illegally had no rights under the Fifth Amendment, which enshrines the right to due process.
For the judge, that interpretation is "surprising and dangerous," as accepting it would not only leave migrants unprotected but also set a precedent that "would put everyone at risk."
"The government presents a truly surprising argument: that those who entered the country illegally have no right to any process under the Fifth Amendment and must instead accept any leniency granted to them by Congress. If that were true, not only non-citizens but everyone would be at risk," Cobb stated in the document.
A controversial policy and its scope
In January, Trump reactivated the "immediate expulsion" of undocumented immigrants, a mechanism he had already used during his first term.
The policy, known as "expedited removal," granted Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials greater authority to deport immigrants without a court hearing if they could not demonstrate at least two years of continuous presence in the United States.
Traditionally, the procedure had been limited to individuals detained less than 160 kilometers from the border and who had been in the country for less than 14 days.
The new scope that the White House aimed for would allow this expedited process to be applied nationwide, exposing a significantly larger number of people to immediate expulsion.
For Judge Cobb, this expansion created an "unacceptable risk" of wrongful deportations, especially in the case of immigrants who have been in the country for a long time.
The complaint from civil organizations
The case went to court after a lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Make the Road New York, an organization that advocates for immigrants.
Both groups argued that the expansion of expedited deportations violated not only the Fifth Amendment but also the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The judge granted them a crucial point: the government cannot apply a summary procedure with virtually no guarantees to individuals who have been living in the country for years, as this eliminates any real possibility of defense and turns the process into an automatic procedure.
Impact on Trump's plans
The judicial hold complicates the president's plans, who has promised to carry out the largest internal deportation operation in history with the goal of expelling a million immigrants in a year.
The possibility of applying expedited expulsions without hearings was seen as a key component for executing that project, reducing time and costs.
However, the ruling restricts the government to applying the policy only in cases that have been established for decades: migrants detained at the border or in its vicinity and with very little time in U.S. territory.
Background of the policy
The expedited deportation mechanism was introduced in 1996 with the aim of strengthening border control.
Under that framework, migrants could claim a fear of persecution in their home countries to apply for asylum, but if an immigration official denied the request, the review was minimal and did not ensure a thorough examination of their case.
Trump attempted to expand this resource during his first term, although he faced judicial blocks. In October 2020, he managed to implement it, but in the last months of his administration, only 17 people were deported under this scheme, according to figures from the Immigration Policy Institute.
With Joe Biden's arrival in January 2021, the measure was revoked.
The magistrate states that she does not question the constitutionality of expedited deportations, which are applied to immigrants detained near the southern border and who have been in the country for only a few days, but rather their expansion.
"By applying the statute to a large group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited deportation, the government must ensure due process," the ruling states.
Recently, Cobb also halted efforts by the Republican administration to expedite the expulsion of immigrants who had received temporary entry permits, warning about the risks of massive rights violations.
The substantive debate
The ruling puts back at the center of the debate the tension between Trump’s restrictive immigration agenda and the constitutional guarantees that protect all individuals on U.S. soil, regardless of their legal status.
For immigrant advocates, the court ruling reaffirms that due process cannot be sacrificed in the name of efficiency.
"The government is trampling on the basic rights of migrants by expanding a policy that effectively strips them of all defense," warned the ACLU after the ruling was made public.
For now, the legal battle continues, but Cobb's decision sends a clear message: the promise of massive deportations is in direct conflict with the fundamental principles of the Constitution of the United States.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Block on Expedited Deportations in the U.S.
What does Judge Jia M. Cobb's ruling on expedited deportations imply?
The ruling temporarily halts the expansion of expedited deportations that the Donald Trump administration sought to implement for undocumented immigrants detained far from the border. Judge Cobb argued that this practice violates the due process guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.
Why is Trump's expedited deportation policy controversial?
The "expedited removal" policy allows ICE officials to deport immigrants without a court hearing if they cannot demonstrate at least two years of continuous presence in the U.S. This creates an "unacceptable risk" of wrongful deportations, especially for those who have been in the country for a long time, and violates the right to a fair process.
What is the impact of the court ruling on Trump's immigration plans?
The judicial ruling complicates President Trump's plans for mass deportation, who had promised to remove a million immigrants in a year. The possibility of implementing rapid expulsions without a hearing was considered crucial to achieving this goal, but now the government is limited to using the policy in cases that have been established for decades.
What organizations have supported the demand against the expansion of express deportations?
The lawsuit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of Make the Road New York, an immigrant advocacy organization. Both organizations argued that the expansion violated the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.
Filed under: