🚨This is a truly terrifying development.
Under the Trump administration's expansion of "expedited removal," ICE can snatch anyone off the street, anywhere in the US, and deport them in days if they can't prove that they're here legally, or have been here for at least two years.
Under the Trump administration's expansion of "expedited removal," ICE can snatch anyone off the street, anywhere in the US, and deport them in days if they can't prove that they're here legally, or have been here for at least two years.
Here's a thread I wrote on the expansion of Expedited Removal when it first happened. We @immcouncil, along with our partners, successfully sued to block it. But the DC Circuit just reversed the lower court's decision, barring a further appeal.
If this rule goes into effect, barring further developments in court (which I'm not involved in), this creates a national "show me your papers" rule for everyone in the entire country.
The possibility of the rule being wrongfully applied is very high.
The possibility of the rule being wrongfully applied is very high.
Expedited Removal was created in 1996, but from 2004-2019, it was limited to people arrested within 100 miles of the border and within 14 days of entering the US.
Last year, DHS expanded it to its full extent—anywhere in the US, within 2 years of entry. americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/prime….
Last year, DHS expanded it to its full extent—anywhere in the US, within 2 years of entry. americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/prime….
As early as next week, the Supreme Court is going to decide whether Congress could legally suspend the right of habeas corpus for people in expedited removal—and it seems like Justice Alito might end up writing the decision.
We are in dangerous times. economist.com/democracy-in-a…
We are in dangerous times. economist.com/democracy-in-a…
Importantly, today is not the end of the day for this lawsuit. As the D.C. Circuit pointed out, there are further arguments that can be developed opposing the rule. So the fight will continue. 
Importantly, over a dissent from Judge Rao, the D.C. Circuit said that challengers MAY bring lawsuits against the expansion of expedited removal. It's just that the grounds for the injunction (the Administrative Procedure Act), was insufficient. Other challenges are permitted.
Judge Rao would have declared that the Immigration and Nationality Act doesn't allow lawsuits brought against the expansion of expedited removal. The majority opinion made clear that's not correct—Congress explicitly carved out the right to sue against changes to ER policies.
A final note about expedited removal:
It was created in 1996, in a law (IIRIRA) enacted in the same spirit as the "tough on crime" bills we now realize were mistakes. It's filled with weapons to be used against immigrants, that lay unused until Trump came along.
It needs to go.
It was created in 1996, in a law (IIRIRA) enacted in the same spirit as the "tough on crime" bills we now realize were mistakes. It's filled with weapons to be used against immigrants, that lay unused until Trump came along.
It needs to go.
One more thing. Thanks for @ToddRuger for pointing this out. The rule will not go into effect immediately today. The "mandate" from the DC Circuit's decision is held back for a week to allow for another appeal.
