A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Tuesday vacated a lower court’s injunction, clearing the way for the Department of Homeland Security to resume nationwide expedited removal of undocumented migrants. The 2-1 decision means immigration officers may now deport individuals encountered anywhere in the United States without a hearing before an immigration judge, provided the person cannot demonstrate continuous residence of at least two years. The policy, which had been blocked since August 2025, is viewed by the administration as a central mechanism for its mass deportation campaign.

The majority opinion, authored by Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, held that the challenged directives do not deprive migrants of a meaningful opportunity to be heard, noting that the law itself contemplates a fast screening system. Judge Neomi Rao, also appointed by Trump, joined the opinion in large part. In dissent, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, argued that the procedure is “woefully inadequate” for individuals apprehended in the interior, far from the border. The Department of Homeland Security’s general counsel, James Percival, stated the ruling “vindicated our decision to apply the law as written.” Immigrant rights groups, represented by the ACLU, countered that the fast-track system is “unfair and error-prone” and undermines due process, citing evidence of wrongful removals presented in the district court.

The appeals court’s decision restores a tool that the Trump administration had expanded in January 2025 to the maximum extent permitted by Congress, reversing a Biden-era restriction that limited expedited removal to areas near the border and to recent entrants. On the same day, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a separate 6-3 ruling in Blanche v. Lau that gives border officers greater flexibility to treat returning lawful permanent residents as applicants for admission based on unproven criminal allegations. Writing for the conservative majority, Justice Clarence Thomas said officers do not need “clear and convincing evidence” that a green card holder has committed a serious crime before altering their status. In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by the court’s two other Democratic appointees, warned that the decision handed the government a “massive blank check” and could leave green card holders in “immigration limbo” for years.

Viewed from Washington, the twin rulings reinforce the executive branch’s authority over immigration enforcement at a time when the administration is also seeking to end birthright citizenship, revoke Temporary Protected Status for over a million people, and accelerate denaturalisation efforts. The expedited removal policy is now in effect nationwide, though immigrant advocacy organisations may seek further review, including a potential petition to the Supreme Court. The green card ruling is final, but the high court is expected to rule in the coming weeks on other immigration cases that will further define the legal boundaries of the president’s deportation agenda.