A federal appeals court gave the Trump administration the green light to resume its fast-track removal of illegal aliens throughout the United States on Tuesday.

In a 2-1 ruling, the three-judge panel for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned an August 2025 decision by Biden-appointed D.C. District Judge Jia Cobb. That ruling attempted to block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand the “expedited removal” process to increase the deportation of illegal immigrants.

According to the Congressional Research Service, federal law established a “streamlined expedited removal process” in which “certain aliens deemed inadmissible by an immigration officer may be removed from the United States without further administrative hearings or review.” While prior administrations limited expedited removal to aliens “intercepted within 100 miles of a U.S. land border and within two weeks of entering the U.S.,” the Trump administration expanded it “to apply anywhere in the U.S. and to any unauthorized immigrant who cannot show they have been in the country for more than two years,” as described by left-wing Politico.

Writing for the majority, Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, ruled that Cobb’s finding that the Trump administration’s expansion of expedited removal “likely violated due process” is incorrect. In doing so, he said that Cobb’s pause of the government’s policies is now void.

“Although [the challenger] Make the Road clears the four threshold procedural hurdles, it falters when it reaches the merits. It has not shown that the written directives fail to comply with constitutional due process,” Walker wrote. “And Make the Road’s evidence of implementation problems — referral errors, rushed interviews, communication barriers — does not establish that the Designation and Huffman Memorandum are themselves ‘not consistent with applicable provisions of [federal law] or … otherwise in violation of law.’ We therefore vacate the district court’s §705 stay.”

While joining parts of Walker’s opinion and concurring in the judgment, Judge Neomi Rao, another Trump appointee, authored a separate opinion expressing a different view. She agreed that the administration’s expedited removal policy is “consistent with due process and that the district court’s stay must be vacated,” but said that Make the Road’s lawsuit “should have been dismissed at the threshold because Congress left expedited removal policies to the Executive’s discretion, barred judicial review, and foreclosed universal remedies.”

Meanwhile, Judge Robert Wilkins, an Obama appointee, dissented from the court’s holding. While he concurred with aspects of Walker’s opinion — such as its finding that the plaintiffs have standing and that the president’s directive is reviewable under federal law — he expressed disagreement with the majority’s determination regarding due process.

“I write separately … to express my view that Plaintiffs were entitled to a §705 stay under [existing precedent], having shown a likelihood of success that the 2025 Designation and Huffman Memorandum violate due process. On that ground, I respectfully dissent,” Wilkins wrote.

The ruling came down the same day the U.S. Supreme Court handed the administration a win in another high-profile immigration case. In Blanche v. Lau, the 6-3 majority recognized border officials’ ability to parole green card holders who have “committed a crime involving moral turpitude.”

Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He is a co-recipient of the 2025 Dao Prize for Excellence in Investigative Journalism. His work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics and RealClearHealth. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood