(C) NTD News

WASHINGTON D.C. — A U.S. appeals court has maintained a block on the Trump administration's efforts to expand the fast-track deportation policy across the entire country, rejecting the administration's request to suspend a lower court's ruling. The decision marks a significant setback for the administration’s aggressive enforcement agenda targeting undocumented immigrants.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the Trump administration's motion to stay a federal district court injunction. The injunction, issued in August by U.S. District Judge Zia Faruqui in Washington D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could not implement its policy of swiftly deporting non-citizens found anywhere in the United States who had been in the country for less than two years.

The Fast-Track Policy and Expansion 

For nearly 30 years, the expedited removal policy has allowed the government to deport non-citizens without a hearing before an immigration judge, provided they had not been continuously present in the U.S. for two years. Initially, this policy was primarily applied to immigrants detained near the U.S. border.

In January, as part of a crackdown on illegal immigration, the Trump administration sought to dramatically broaden the scope of this policy. The new rule proposed applying expedited removal to virtually all non-citizens across the entire U.S. who could not prove they had been continuously present for two years.

Appeals Court Decision Cites Due Process Concerns 

In their decision, Circuit Judges Patricia Millett and Michelle Childs—both appointed during Democratic administrations—cited the severe risks posed by the administration's expansion. They argued that the government's attempt to widen the fast-track deportations raised a "serious danger of erroneous summary removals."

The majority opinion indicated that the administration would likely face difficulty in proving that its expanded policy adequately protects immigrants' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

In a dissenting opinion, Judge Neomi Rao, an appointee of President Trump, sharply criticized the lower court's initial ruling, calling it an "unacceptable judicial intervention."

The appeals court's refusal to grant a stay means the lower court's block on the nationwide expansion remains in effect as the legal challenge moves forward. The Court of Appeals is scheduled to hear the substantive arguments of the administration's appeal beginning next month, on December 9th.

The Department of Homeland Security has not yet issued a statement regarding the appellate court’s latest decision. The ongoing legal battle underscores the deep divide over immigration enforcement and the balance between border security and constitutional protections for immigrants within the U.S. legal system.