PROFILE: The DC Circuit authorizes nationwide expedited deportations — a judicial turning point

June 23, 2026: a 2-1 ruling that upends everything

On June 23, 2026, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 verdict that fundamentally redraws the architecture of immigration law in the United States: it reinstated the policy of expedited removal across the entire American territory, overturning the block that a district court judge had imposed in August 2025. The case, known as Make the Road New York v. Mullin, represents a major strategic victory for the Trump administration in its offensive against undocumented immigration.

What expedited removal actually means

Expedited removal is a procedure that allows the federal government to deport without a formal hearing before an immigration judge any person without legal status who has been present for less than two years on American soil. Previously, this procedure applied only at the border or in specific geographic zones. The DC Circuit's ruling now extends it to all 50 states and American territories, with no geographic exception.

I understand the desire for efficiency in immigration policy. But when you strip a human being of the right to defend themselves before a judge — across an entire continental territory — you are no longer talking about administrative efficiency. You are talking about dismantling a fundamental protection that liberal democracies built over decades of jurisprudence.

The origin: a policy restored by executive order

In January 2025, the Trump administration issued directives extending expedited removal nationwide, reviving a position it had already attempted in 2019 during its first term. Federal judge Jia Cobb, appointed by President Biden in the Michigan district, blocked that extension in August 2025, ruling that it exceeded the executive's statutory authority and violated due process rights. Her ruling temporarily protected thousands of migrants from summary deportation.

The DC Circuit panel and its reasoning

The majority on the DC Circuit panel concluded that the immigration statute — the INA (Immigration and Nationality Act) — expressly grants the Secretary of Homeland Security the discretionary authority to expand the scope of expedited removal. The majority judges found that Judge Cobb had erred by imposing her own restrictive reading of legislative text that, in their view, clearly places this tool in the executive's hands. The dissent, meanwhile, argued that the constitutional due process clause imposes limits that Congress cannot erase through simple delegation.

The dissent in this case raises a question the majority brushes aside too quickly: can Congress delegate to the executive the power to circumvent constitutional guarantees? The theoretical answer is no. But in practice, appeals courts are tilting increasingly toward deference to the executive — and that drift is what worries me.

Migrants living in the interior, not just at the border

Before this ruling, expedited removal applied primarily to people intercepted at the border or within 100 miles of it. Now, it can target someone who has lived for one year and eleven months in Chicago, New York, or Los Angeles, without any prior contact with law enforcement and without any opportunity to make their case before a judge. All it takes is for an ICE agent to determine — at their own discretion — that two years of continuous presence have not been established.

The burden of proof reversed

One of the most troubling aspects of expedited removal is the reversal of the burden of proof: it falls on the individual to prove they have been present for more than two years, not on the government to prove otherwise. In practice, undocumented immigrants may find themselves unable to demonstrate continuous presence — rents paid in cash, no formal leases, no official documents. Absence of proof is not proof of absence, but under this procedure, it leads directly to deportation.

Asking an undocumented person — who, by definition, often lives outside formal documentation systems — to prove continuous presence is to engineer a system with a predetermined outcome. That is not law. That is social engineering dressed up as legal procedure.

A Biden appointment in a context of confrontation

Judge Jia Cobb, appointed by President Biden and confirmed by the Senate, had imposed a nationwide block on expanded expedited removal in August 2025. Her ruling rested on careful analysis of due process rights and the scope of legislative delegations to the executive. By overturning that ruling, the DC Circuit is doing more than resolving a legal point — it is signaling to district court judges how far they may go in blocking the administration's immigration policies.

The systemic effect of appellate reversals

The reversal of Judge Cobb fits within a broader pattern documented in June 2026: appeals courts, dominated by judges appointed by Republican presidents, have systematically overturned dozens of blocks imposed by district court judges. According to a report by Colorado Politics dated June 22, 2026, this pattern creates institutional pressure on liberal district court judges, who see their protective rulings erased repeatedly in immigration cases.

There is something deeply unsettling about a system where district court judges, appointed for their independence, quickly learn that their protective rulings will be erased by the court above. Judicial independence is not only about appointments — it is also about institutional culture. And that culture is visibly fraying.

A ground-level actor at the heart of the case

Make the Road New York is a community organization representing tens of thousands of immigrants across New York State. By bringing this case before federal courts, it positioned itself as one of the judicial bulwarks against the expansion of expedited removal. Its lawyers argued not only on constitutional grounds, but also on the concrete impact for their members: people present for more than a year, with no criminal record, integrated into their communities.

The post-ruling strategy

Following the DC Circuit's decision, Make the Road New York and its legal partners indicated they would explore all available avenues, including a potential en banc petition or a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The 2-1 ruling leaves room to maneuver: the dissenting judge authored a detailed opinion that could serve as the foundation for future appeals. The legal battle over expedited removal is far from over.

What I take from Make the Road New York is that there are real people behind those case numbers. Parents, workers, people who have built lives. The right to a hearing before a judge before being torn from your family should not be a partisan question. It is a human one.

A break from the 100-mile doctrine

Historically, expedited removal was associated with the zone within 100 miles of land and maritime borders — a zone that already covers roughly two-thirds of the American population, according to the ACLU. The nationwide extension breaks even that limit. Now, states like Montana, North Dakota, and Idaho — states without a direct international border — can see ICE agents apply expedited removal with no geographic proximity to a border whatsoever.

ICE's operational capacity

The question of operational resources is central. ICE does not have the capacity to immediately deport millions of people. But the DC Circuit's ruling substantially expands its legal arsenal: it can now threaten, initiate proceedings, or use this option as leverage in specific contexts. Immigration law experts quoted by multiple outlets noted that the chilling effect of this ruling — independent of its practical enforcement — is itself a political tool.

The United States deported more than two million people during Trump's first term. With nationwide expedited removal, the second term has an even more powerful legal instrument. I am not claiming that all undocumented migrants are innocent victims. But I am claiming that every human being deserves a hearing before being deported. That is the difference between the rule of law and a state of exception.

The position of the Trump administration

The Trump administration welcomed the ruling as confirmation of its legal authority on immigration. DHS spokespersons emphasized that expedited removal is a statutory tool, passed by Congress, and that its geographic expansion simply gives the executive the means to enforce existing law. For the administration, this ruling validates its central thesis: the president holds broad discretionary authority over immigration, and the courts must respect it.

The reaction from states and advocacy groups

Democratic-led states reacted with alarm, with several attorneys general announcing they would review the implications for their residents. Organizations such as the ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, and RAICES condemned the ruling as a capitulation to the executive. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, traditionally cautious politically, published a statement highlighting the humanitarian risks of no-hearing deportation for families with deep community ties.

What strikes me about the partisan reactions to this ruling is that almost no one is talking about the individuals affected. The right celebrates a legal victory. The left denounces a rights violation. But in the middle of that abstract debate, there are real people who do not know whether they will still be on American soil tomorrow morning. That dehumanization of the debate is itself a problem.

History repeats — but differently

This is not the first time the Trump administration has attempted to extend expedited removal nationwide. In July 2019, during its first term, the DHS published a similar rule. Organizations like Make the Road New York obtained a judicial block. The key difference in 2026? The composition of appeals courts has shifted, with more judges appointed by Republican presidents, and the current Supreme Court has shown greater deference to the executive on immigration.

Lessons from the first term

The Trump administration clearly learned from its first-term judicial failures. The legal arguments are more refined, the statutory foundations more carefully constructed, and the forum strategy — choosing the most favorable appeals courts — is more sophisticated. The Make the Road New York v. Mullin ruling is not the product of chance: it is the result of a legal strategy meticulously planned over years.

The lesson the Trump administration drew from its first term is brutally simple: build a better legal case. That is not a bad lesson in itself. The problem is when it is put in service of a policy whose goal is to strip human beings of their right to be heard. Legal excellence in the service of injustice remains injustice.

The dissenting judge's arguments

The dissenting judge in Make the Road New York v. Mullin argued that the due process clause of the Constitution imposes a limit that legislative delegation cannot cross: you cannot deprive a person of their liberty and right to remain on the territory without offering them some form of hearing, regardless of their immigration status. The dissent also challenged the majority's reading of the INA, arguing that the statute does not confer such unlimited discretion on the Secretary of Homeland Security.

The reach of the dissent

A dissent in a federal appeals court is not merely a minority vote: it is often a roadmap for future appeals. The dissenting opinion in Make the Road New York v. Mullin gives immigrant defense organizations a detailed constitutional argument they can carry to the Supreme Court. If the Court agrees to hear the case — which is not guaranteed — the dissent will be at the center of the arguments.

Judicial dissents have changed American history. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent in Bush v. Gore remains a lesson in legal humanism. The dissent in Make the Road New York v. Mullin could, in a few years, be cited as the moment when a judge refused to validate a faceless deportation machine.

The geography of administrative terror

Even before expedited removal was fully deployed on a national scale, the mere announcement of the DC Circuit's ruling had an immediate effect in immigrant communities. Community organizations in Texas, Florida, Illinois, and California reported a surge in calls to their helplines. Parents asked about the rights of their American-born children — who, as citizens, cannot be deported. Fear is itself an instrument of immigration policy.

Citizen children and family separation

One of the most painful dimensions of expanded expedited removal involves mixed-status families: an undocumented parent present for a year and a half, children born on American soil and therefore citizens. Deporting the parent without a hearing means a brutal family rupture, with no judicial safety net. The United States has historically acknowledged that family separation represents serious harm — but that acknowledgment does not automatically translate into legal protection under the expedited removal framework.

American children losing their parents to an administrative procedure with no judge. This is not progressive rhetoric — it is a documented and foreseeable consequence of this policy. If we accept that human cost as "necessary," we should at least own it clearly and stop hiding behind the legal jargon of executive deference.

Post-Chevron: courts defer less automatically

The Make the Road New York v. Mullin ruling comes amid a major doctrinal shift. Since the Supreme Court's decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo in 2024, which ended the Chevron doctrine, federal courts are no longer required to defer to government agencies' interpretations of ambiguous statutes. Paradoxically, in this case, the DC Circuit majority still granted the executive broad latitude — not by doctrinal obligation, but by interpretive choice.

Consistency with the immigration sovereignty doctrine

American federal courts have historically granted the executive particular deference on immigration, viewed as an area of especially sensitive national sovereignty. The DC Circuit's ruling fits within that tradition — but it extends it into new legal territory. Never before had expedited removal been authorized nationwide by an appeals court. This is a precedent that redefines the contours of American immigration law.

The immigration sovereignty doctrine is real and legitimate: a state has the right to control its borders. But there is a difference between controlling borders and stripping long-term residents of any judicial recourse. The first is normal public policy. The second borders on state arbitrariness. The line between the two has dangerously shifted with this ruling.

An en banc petition or a Supreme Court appeal?

After the panel's 2-1 ruling, the plaintiff organizations have several options. They can petition for en banc review — meaning by the full complement of active DC Circuit judges — or go directly to the Supreme Court via a petition for certiorari. The chosen strategy will depend on an assessment of the odds: is the current DC Circuit, given its composition, likely to reverse its own panel? Is the current Supreme Court likely to impose constitutional limits on expedited removal?

Timelines and deportations already underway

While appeals are being considered, the Trump administration can theoretically begin applying expedited removal across the entire territory. Temporary injunctions could be sought to block immediate enforcement, but obtaining them is not guaranteed in this judicial climate. The concrete risk is that irreversible deportations take place while appellate proceedings are still in progress — a problem that courts struggle to remedy after the fact.

Deportations are irreversible in a very concrete sense: once a person is in Honduras, Colombia, or Guatemala, a court ruling rehabilitating them does not bring them home. American law provides remedies in theory, but in practice, no one returns easily after a deportation. That is precisely why these procedures require up-front protections, not after-the-fact remedies.

A population estimated in the hundreds of thousands

Statistics on undocumented immigrants present for less than two years in the United States are, by definition, difficult to pin down precisely. The Pew Research Center estimated in 2024 that the undocumented population stood between ten and twelve million people. Among them, a significant fraction — perhaps several hundred thousand — has been present for less than two years and could theoretically be targeted by expanded expedited removal. These are the people the DC Circuit's ruling exposes most directly.

Migration flows from 2022 to 2024 and their profile

The years 2022 to 2024 saw border arrivals in the United States that were historically unprecedented in recent memory, with hundreds of thousands of entries per year. Many of those individuals entered while awaiting asylum proceedings that were never finalized. Under the Biden administration, parole policies allowed some to remain legally while their cases were processed. Those protections are being revoked by the Trump administration, and the DC Circuit's ruling adds one more tool for accelerating forced departures.

When we talk about numbers — several hundred thousand, several million — it is easy to lose sight of what those numbers represent. These are individuals with histories, with children, with rents paid, with jobs. Statistics dehumanize. I keep coming back to the individual — not to defend irregular migration status, but to remember that law applies to people, not to accounting abstractions.

The international reaction

The DC Circuit's ruling did not escape international notice. Governments in Central America and South America expressed concern about the conditions under which their nationals could be deported. Organizations like the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reminded the United States of its international obligations on asylum and non-refoulement — obligations that persist even within an expedited removal framework if the person has expressed a fear of persecution.

A comparison with European practices

It is instructive to compare this evolution with European immigration practices. Countries like Hungary and Poland have attempted accelerated border deportation procedures that were challenged before the European Court of Human Rights. The institutional difference with the United States is significant: the US is not subject to a supranational human rights jurisdiction in the same way European Union member states are. That absence of external oversight amplifies the importance of internal constitutional protections.

Europe has its own problems with irregular immigration — and I am not claiming it always gets it right. But it is striking that countries considered among the least respectful of migrants' rights in Europe operate under procedures that the European Court condemns, while the United States — self-proclaimed democratic beacon — is expanding no-hearing deportations. American exceptionalism sometimes takes forms its own founders would not have recognized.

What this ruling reveals about the state of American law

The DC Circuit's ruling in Make the Road New York v. Mullin is not simply a judgment on expedited removal. It is a profile of American law in 2026: appeals courts increasingly aligned with a vision of a powerful executive, a culture of deference that persists even after the end of Chevron, and rights organizations fighting against an institutional current that is hard to swim against. This profile is not reassuring for those who believe that judicial counterweights must remain robust against the executive.

A warning for the future

Nationwide expedited removal creates a legal precedent that will outlast the administration that created it. A future government, regardless of its political color, could use this tool against other groups, other categories of people. Once a power is established, it does not disappear with its creators. It simply waits for the next user. That is the most important warning carried by this DC Circuit ruling: what we build today defines what can be done tomorrow.

This DC Circuit ruling will stand as a marker of the Trump II era: the moment when an appeals court officially authorized a government to deport residents without giving them the right to be heard by a judge. Twenty years from now, when historians analyze this period, they will note that the judicial institutions supposed to protect did not always fulfill that role. And that some judges, at least, said no.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.