Appeals court revives DHS' speedy deportation powers against Biden's paroled migrants

A federal appeals court has revived the Department of Homeland Security’s authority to use a fast-tracked deportation process, known as expedited removal, on migrants who were granted entry through parole programs under the Biden administration. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled 3-0 on Tuesday that the groups challenging the policy lacked legal standing to sue, effectively allowing the Trump administration to proceed with its plan to deport a significant number of individuals who arrived in the United States through non-traditional means. The court overturned a previous lower court ruling that had blocked the use of expedited removal on parolees. The three-judge panel stated that the plaintiffs failed to challenge the underlying regulation that permits the practice, which dates back to the Clinton administration. As a result, the court vacated the stay imposed by the district court and left the door open for the policy to move forward. The expedited removal process, established by Congress in 1996, allows immigration officials to remove undocumented immigrants who have been in the country for less than two years without going through a full immigration court hearing. While initially restricted to border cases, the policy has been expanded over time, particularly during the Trump administration, which sought to apply it more broadly. According to Andrew “Art” Arthur, a former immigration judge and current researcher at the Center for Immigration Studies, the Biden administration significantly increased the use of parole, admitting nearly 2.9 million migrants through this program. These individuals included Afghans, Ukrainians, Venezuelans, Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Haitians, among others, many of whom arrived via air travel or at the U.S.-Mexico border. Arthur explained that the legal challenge centered around whether the expedited removal process could be applied to these parolees. He emphasized that the policy had never been tested in this context before due to the unprecedented scale of the Biden administration’s parole admissions. The Trump administration began exploring the use of expedited removal on parolees shortly after taking office in January 2025. A directive from the Department of Homeland Security encouraged immigration officers to consider applying the process, followed by an internal email from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement instructing agents to use expedited removal on parolees. The Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights filed a lawsuit against these directives, arguing that they violated existing immigration laws. However, the appeals court dismissed the challenge, noting that the coalition did not contest the original regulation from the Clinton era, which already permitted expedited removal on parolees. DHS General Counsel James Percival praised the court’s decision, calling it a “big win” for the department. He urged undocumented immigrants to take advantage of a voluntary departure program offering financial assistance and a free return flight, emphasizing that it was still possible to leave the country before being apprehended by immigration officials. The ruling marks a significant shift in immigration enforcement strategy, potentially impacting a large portion of the population who entered the United States through parole. With the legal barriers removed, the Trump administration is poised to implement a broader deportation initiative targeting those who entered the country without proper documentation. The decision comes amid ongoing debates over immigration policy, with supporters of stricter enforcement applauding the move as a necessary step to secure borders and protect American jobs. Critics, however, argue that the policy could disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and exacerbate humanitarian concerns. As the implementation of the new policy moves forward, attention will focus on how immigration officials interpret and execute the directives. The potential impact on both the affected individuals and the broader immigration landscape remains uncertain, but the court’s decision has undoubtedly reshaped the legal framework governing deportation processes.