Passim

Issues › Removal

Expansion of expedited removal to people anywhere in the U.S. for less than two years

In effect

In effect nationwide since July 17, 2026

Rehearing requested July 27, 2026

On June 23, 2026, a divided D.C. Circuit panel held that Make the Road hadn't shown the 2025 designation and the Huffman memorandum likely violate due process, and vacated the district court's August 29, 2025 stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705, which had applied nationwide. Because the mandate is withheld until any rehearing petition is decided, the court on July 17 stayed the district court's stay in its entirety pending the mandate. No court order currently stops DHS from applying expedited removal under the 2025 designation.

Status as of
October 31, 2026
Dockets checked
November 3, 2026

The policy

On January 21, 2025, DHS designated for expedited removal, anywhere in the country, noncitizens who haven't been admitted or paroled and can't show an immigration officer that they've been continuously present for two years (90 Fed. Reg. 8139). Before 2025, the designations in effect reached people encountered within 100 miles of the border within 14 days of entry and certain people who arrived by sea. A January 23, 2025 memorandum from the acting DHS secretary told officers how to apply it. Make the Road New York, a membership organization, challenged the designation and memorandum in the District of Columbia, where the INA channels challenges to the expedited-removal system, arguing chiefly that the process violates due process.

Court rulings

Rulings on the policy by court. Stay and procedural rulings say what the court did and aren't counted in the circuit row.

  1. 1No ruling
  2. 2No ruling
  3. 3No ruling
  4. 4No ruling
  5. 5No ruling
  6. 6No ruling
  7. 7No ruling
  8. 8No ruling
  9. 9No ruling
  10. 10No ruling
  11. 11No ruling
  12. DCUpheld
  • Ruled against the policy
  • Upheld the policy
  • Mixed or split
  • No merits ruling tracked
CourtRulingCaseNote
D.C. Cir. Stay of the policy vacated; challenge unlikely to succeedPreliminary ruling Make the Road New York v. MullinNo. 25-5320 · Jun 23, 2026 Vacated the nationwide § 705 stay: plaintiffs unlikely to show the written directives violate due process. 2-1, Wilkins, J., dissenting. En banc petition filed July 27.

For practitioners

  • Who the 2025 designation reaches: noncitizens inadmissible under INA § 212(a)(6)(C) or (a)(7) who haven't been admitted or paroled and haven't affirmatively shown, to an immigration officer's satisfaction, two years of continuous presence, wherever they're encountered. The 2002 (arrivals by sea) and 2004 (100 miles, 14 days) designations remain and weren't at issue. [1][2]
  • Venue and review. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3), challenges to the expedited-removal statute, its regulations or written policy directives must be brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia, within statutory time limits. Habeas review of an individual expedited removal order is limited to whether the person is a noncitizen, whether an order issued, and whether the person has LPR, refugee or asylee status (§ 1252(e)(2)). [1]
  • Procedural path. The district court's August 29, 2025 order postponed and stayed the designation and, insofar as it implements the designation, the Huffman memorandum. On November 22, 2025 a motions panel stayed that order only to the extent it required changes to credible-fear procedures. The merits panel vacated the stay June 23, 2026; on July 17 (Doc. 2183702) it stayed the district court's order in full pending the mandate and denied expedited issuance of the mandate. [1][2][3][4][5]
  • Parolees are the subject of a separate case. On August 11, 2026, the D.C. Circuit vacated a district court stay that had barred applying expedited removal to people paroled at a port of entry, holding the district court lacked jurisdiction (Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Mullin, No. 25-5289). That case isn't tracked on this page. [1]
  • Individual habeas challenges have met jurisdictional bars: the First Circuit (Alawieh v. Mullin, Oct. 13, 2026) and the Eleventh Circuit (Pitaluga Nunez, Oct. 28, 2026, unpublished) affirmed dismissals, for lack of jurisdiction, of claims challenging an expedited removal order's validity or placement in expedited removal. [1][2]

In plain language

Expedited removal is a fast way to deport people without a hearing before an immigration judge. Since January 2025, the government says it can use it anywhere in the U.S. against people who weren't admitted or paroled and can't prove they've lived here for two straight years. Before, it was mostly used near the border. A court paused the policy in August 2025. In June 2026 an appeals court said the pause should end, and since July 17, 2026 the policy has been in effect. The group that sued has asked the full appeals court to look at the case again. This expansion does not cover someone who establishes, to the immigration officer's satisfaction, continuous physical presence in the United States throughout the two years immediately before the inadmissibility determination. An immigration lawyer can tell you what applies to you.

Find free or low-cost legal help

New on the dockets, not yet reviewed

Court actions picked up from the dockets after the last review. They're quoted as filed and don't change the status until they're checked against the order.

Nothing new since the last review.

How we got here

  1. D.C. Circuit vacated stay of nationwide expedited-removal expansion

    Make the Road New York v. Mullin · D.C. Cir. · Source

  2. District court stayed expanded expedited-removal designation

    Make the Road New York v. Mullin · D.C. Cir. · Source

  3. DHS expanded expedited removal nationwide

    Make the Road New York v. Mullin · D.C. Cir. · Source

Status changes

Selected changes since August 29, 2025, each with the order behind it.

  • In effect nationwide since July 17, 2026. D.C. Circuit stayed the district court's § 705 stay in its entirety pending issuance of the mandate. Source
  • Stay vacated on appeal; mandate withheld. The merits panel vacated the § 705 stay, but the mandate was withheld pending any rehearing petition. Source
  • Stay left in place except credible-fear changes. D.C. Circuit motions panel denied a stay pending appeal except as to required changes to credible-fear procedures. Source
  • Stayed nationwide by the district court. D.D.C. postponed and stayed the January 2025 designation and the Huffman memorandum under 5 U.S.C. § 705. Source

Cases (1)

CaseCourtLatestAs of
Make the Road New York v. MullinNo. 25-5320 · Lead caseD.C. Cir.D.C. Circuit vacated stay of expanded expedited removal policyJun 23, 2026

In the news

Every status statement on this page links to the order it rests on. Docket entries marked "not yet reviewed" are quoted as filed. How we track litigation