D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to Trump Administration Expedited Removal Policy (Is an En Banc Petition to Follow?)
The D.C. Circuit panel vacated a district court stay, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to implement its expanded expedited removal policy. The judges issued differing opinions on due‑process concerns and the scope of judicial review. The case may be taken up en banc, where a more liberal full court could reconsider the panel’s decision.
- ▪A divided three‑judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s stay that had blocked the DHS from applying the expanded expedited removal process.
- ▪Judge Walker authored the majority opinion, finding the policy consistent with due process, while Judge Rao concurred in part and argued the issue should not be subject to judicial review.
- ▪Judge Wilkins partially concurred and partially dissented, asserting that the policy’s adoption violated due process and should be reviewed by courts.
- ▪The plaintiffs, Make the Road New York, challenged the Executive’s authority to broaden expedited removal, arguing it exceeded congressional limits.
- ▪Legal analysts anticipate a petition for en banc review, given the full circuit’s more liberal composition compared to the panel.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Immigration D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to Trump Administration Expedited Removal Policy (Is an En Banc Petition to Follow?) Is the D.C. Circuit willing to allow "conservative" panel decisions on hot-button issues to stand? And is en banc review more than a way to ensure further review at One First Street? Jonathan H. Adler | 6.24.2026 10:26 AM Yesterday, in Make the Road New York v. Mullin, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated a district court's stay blocking the Department of Homeland Security from applying "expedited removal" processes more broadly. Judge Walker wrote the opinion for the court. Judge Rao concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Judge Wilkins concurred in part and dissented in part.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason.com
