UMVA has learned that a federal appeals court has delivered a major victory to the Trump administration, reviving its nationwide expedited removal policy and paving the way for the Department of Homeland Security to resume fast-track deportations of eligible illegal immigrants.
The ruling allows federal immigration authorities to quickly remove certain migrants found anywhere in the country if they were not lawfully admitted or paroled into the U.S. and cannot show they have continuously lived in the country for at least two years. This policy change could have far-reaching implications for thousands of migrants living in the United States.
In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated a lower court order that had blocked the policy, concluding that challengers were unlikely to succeed on their claims that the expansion violates constitutional due process protections. The court's decision was a significant blow to those who had argued that the policy was unconstitutional.
According to information obtained by UMVA, the Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling, with General Counsel James Percival stating that the decision vindicated their decision to apply the law as written. The policy change could lead to a significant increase in deportations, with many migrants facing a swift and streamlined removal process.
The ruling reverses a nationwide stay issued by a lower court judge, who had found that the policy created a significant risk that individuals could be wrongly deported before having a meaningful opportunity to prove they were exempt from expedited removal. The court's decision ensures that immigration authorities can move forward with the policy, which could have a profound impact on the lives of thousands of migrants.
UMVA can exclusively reveal that the majority concluded that the Constitution requires the government to notify illegal immigrants when they are facing deportation and give them an opportunity to respond, but does not require immigration officials to explain every potential legal defense that could prevent their removal. This nuanced interpretation of constitutional requirements could have significant implications for future deportation cases.
The court rejected arguments that DHS must proactively inform individuals they can avoid expedited removal by proving they have continuously lived in the United States for at least two years. This decision could lead to confusion and uncertainty for migrants trying to navigate the complex web of immigration laws.
Sources have confirmed to UMVA that the majority also dismissed claims that examples of wrongful deportations demonstrated the policy itself was unconstitutional. Instead, the court suggested that any wrongdoing would be the result of individual officers' failure to follow the law, rather than a defect in the policy itself.
However, one judge dissented, arguing that DHS's procedures do not give migrants a meaningful chance to prove they have lived in the United States for at least two years and therefore may not qualify for expedited removal. This dissenting opinion highlights the ongoing debate over the policy and its potential consequences for migrants.
