08/30/2025
FEDERAL COURT PUTS A HALT TO ICE'S EXPANDED USE OF EXPEDITED REMOVALS INCLUDING AT COURT HOUSES
Wow! Judge Jia Cobb is in our news twice in one day! First because sheās the judge in the Lisa Cook matter. And now because she just handed down this exquisite opinion in a case having to do with the Trump administrationās use (ahem, overuse) of āexpedited removalā. It is this overuse that saw ICE agents nabbing people as they showed up for their regular court appointments, etc..
Iām not even going to have to explain it for you because Judge Cobbās language and reasoning is *so* clear! What you need to know is that the ā January 21 Designation Noticeā and the āJanuary 23 Huffman Memorandumā together are what expanded the use of expedited removal. And they are now *stayed*! Booyah!
This is from the first part of the opinion. News from the Front members, the pdf of the full thing is in your inbox; I highly recommend you read it, itās a thing of beauty!
āFor nearly three decades, the federal government has subjected noncitizens apprehended at the border to fast-paced summary removal. Using that procedure, these people are quickly turned back across the border, typically after a single conversation with an immigration officer. This process, known as expedited removal, has long been applied to noncitizens who are apprehended immediately proximate to the land border and [who] have negligible ties or equities in the [United States].
Recently, the Government departed from this longstanding practice. In January 2025, the Government expanded the scope of expedited removal to noncitizens apprehended anywhere in the United States. And in the last few months, the Government has made aggressive use of its newly expanded expedited removal power. When people have appeared in immigration courts for their normally paced immigration proceedings, for instance, the Government has moved to dismiss those proceedings, promptly arrested individuals inside of those courts, and then shuttled them into much faster movingand much less procedurally robust expedited removal proceedings. Days later, these people find themselves removed. The problem, though, is that unlike the group of people who have traditionally been subject to expedited removal those detained at or near the border shortly after crossingthe group of people the Government is now subjecting to expedited removal have long since entered our country. That means that they have a weighty liberty interest in remaining here and therefore must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment. When it exponentially expanded the population subject to expedited removal, the Government did not, however, in any way adapt its procedures to this new group of people.
But when it comes to people living in the interior of the country, prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process. That is because most noncitizens living in the interior have been here longer than two years, rendering them ineligible for expedited removal, and many are seeking asylum or another form of immigration relief, entitling them to further process before they can be removed. The procedures the Government currently uses in expedited removal, however, create a significant risk that it will not identify these disqualifying criteria before quickly ordering someone removed. And the lack of available review means that once the removal happens, it is largely too late to correct the error. In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them. Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.ā
For all of the reasons in her memorandum, she then issued the following order about an hour ago:
āFor the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion for a Stay of Agency Action under 5 U.S.C. 705, ECF 22, is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that, to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings, the effective dates of implementation and enforcement of the January 21 Designation Notice and the January 23 Huffman Memorandum, insofar as it implements the January 21 Designation Notice, are immediately postponed and stayedā
Notes from the Front members: the full memorandum is in your inbox (itās 48 pages long).
If you're not a Notes from the Front member and want in (and want the memorandum discussed here) go here:
Wow!
