Trump signed EO 14159 expanding expedited removal to US interior, eliminating immigration court hearings for non-citizens

On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14159, "Protecting the American People Against Invasion," directing the Department of Homeland Security to use expedited removal authority to the fullest extent permitted by statute. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem implemented the order by publishing a Federal Register designation effective January 21, 2025, restoring the scope of expedited removal to the broadest interpretation Congress had authorized and rescinding the Biden administration's 2022 notice that had narrowed the program. Under the expansion, any non-citizen who could not affirmatively prove at least two years of continuous presence in the United States could be deported without a hearing before an immigration judge, regardless of where in the country they were apprehended.

Expedited removal had been authorized by Congress in the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), but for nearly three decades its use had been confined to migrants apprehended at or near the border within days of entry. The expansion extended this fast-track procedure into the US interior for the first time at national scale. Non-citizens subject to expedited removal — including long-term residents with US-citizen family members, people with pending immigration cases, and individuals with potential asylum claims — could be deported by an enforcement agent's determination alone, with no access to immigration court, no hearing, and no independent judicial review of the removal decision.

Make the Road New York and other organizations filed suit, and in August 2025 US District Judge Jia Cobb blocked the expanded designation, finding the administration had not established procedures adequate to prevent wrongful deportations under the expedited process. The DC Circuit reversed that injunction in June 2026, allowing the expansion to take effect while litigation continued. The ACLU, representing plaintiffs in the DC Circuit arguments, warned that the expansion would "subject people to an unfair and error-prone system."