The front entrance of the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 3, 2023. (Jennifer Shutt/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — Judges on a federal appeals court panel seemed skeptical that the Trump administration’s expanded use of a fast-track deportation procedure didn’t violate the due-process rights of immigrants during oral arguments Monday.

The hearing before judges Patricia A. Millett, Neomi Rao and J. Michelle Childs of the D.C. Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals comes after a lower court struck down the expedited removal policy used to bypass judicial review in the quick removals of migrants far from the southern border. The expanded policy is a pillar in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign. 

“This is a critical tool of immigration enforcement,” U.S. Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign said. “This is not a small deal. The ability to conduct expedited removal is one of the executive’s most important tools for maintaining border control and not being overwhelmed.”

For decades, presidential administrations have applied expedited removal to immigrants apprehended at the southern border who cannot prove they have remained in the country for more than two years. If they cannot produce that proof, those immigrants are then subject to deportation without appearing before an immigration judge.

In January, the Trump administration expanded expedited removal to apply nationwide, rather than only within 100 miles of the southern border.

Childs said the Trump administration can still use expedited removal, along with other enforcement tools, for its immigration policy.

“So what are you losing, other than (applying expedited removal to) millions of other people, to go inward into the U.S.?” Childs asked.

Former President Barack Obama appointed Millett, former President Joe Biden appointed Childs, and President Donald Trump appointed Rao in his first term.

Policy lacks procedure

Arguing on behalf of the immigration advocacy group that brought the suit, Make the Road New York, attorney Anand Balakrishnan said the new policy “brings to bear against this new class of people an entire system of expedited removal that is not procedurally adequate.”

The judges also questioned the legality of the Trump administration’s expanded use of expedited removal. 

Ensign argued that the Trump administration doesn’t believe the expansion violates due-process rights because those affected are not U.S. citizens.

“It has been well-established that aliens who are not lawfully admitted into the country are only entitled to whatever procedures the political branches provide, and that the plaintiffs cannot rely on the due-process clause to impose additional procedural requirements,” Ensign said.

Balakrishnan said that when the Trump administration expanded the use of the policy in January, there were no new procedures put in place, meaning immigrants wanting to challenge their removal under the new policy would have no way to do so.

“The procedures that have been on the books, in some cases are not tailored for this radically new class to which it’s being applied, and in other cases, are insufficient to deal with the unique challenges placed by them and the liberty interests of this new group,” Balakrishnan said. 

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, pictured at center, was released from jail in Putnam County, Tennessee, on August 22, 2025. (John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)

WASHINGTON — Attorneys for Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the man who the Trump administration admitted to wrongly deporting in March, said over the weekend that the administration moved him from one U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility in Virginia to another in Pennsylvania, raising concerns over his access to legal counsel.

In a Saturday legal filing, attorneys representing Abrego Garcia in a criminal case in Tennessee said the federal government’s decision to move him to the Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania, has made it difficult to meet and “properly prepare for trial.”

His attorneys also raised concerns over the conditions at the facility, saying that a detainee died by suicide last month.

“There have been recent reports of assaults, inadequate medical care, and insufficient food, and the Department of Homeland Security abruptly terminated an internal investigation into allegations of excessive force and abuses by guards at the facility,” according to the filing. 

Last month, a judge in Maryland signed a temporary restraining order barring the Trump administration from transferring Abrego Garcia more than 200 miles from the federal courthouse in Greenbelt. The facility in Pennsylvania is 189 miles from the courthouse.

In the Maryland case, Abrego Garcia is challenging his removal from the U.S. and asking to remain in the country while he pursues his asylum case. 

Wrongful removal sparked conflict between branches

Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly removed to a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador, has become a flashpoint between the judicial branch and the administration as President Donald Trump pursues an immigration crackdown. 

The U.S. Supreme Court ordered that the administration must facilitate  Abrego Garcia’s return, and immigration officials brought him back to the U.S. to face criminal charges lodged against him in June.

Shortly after his return, the Trump administration tried to remove him to a third country to comply with removal protections from his home country of El Salvador. The administration has continued efforts to remove Abrego Garcia to Uganda and Eswatini, though Costa Rica has also agreed to accept him as a refugee. 

The Tennessee criminal charges stem from a traffic stop in 2022 that included Abrego Garcia and several people. No charges were filed at the time.

The Department of Justice has alleged that Abrego Garcia took part in a long-running conspiracy to smuggle immigrants without legal status across the United States for money. He’s pleaded not guilty to those charges. 

Asylum denied in 2019

Abrego Garcia came to the U.S. without legal authorization in 2011 when he was 16. He applied for asylum in 2019, but because he did not apply for asylum within his first year in the U.S. – the legal deadline for such claims – authorities denied the application. 

Instead, an immigration judge granted him deportation protections, known as a withholding of removal, because the judge found it likely that Abrego Garcia would face gang violence if he were returned to El Salvador. 

Federal immigration officials at the time didn’t object to the judge’s withholding of removal order and didn’t find a third country to deport Abrego Garcia.

Earlier this year, Abrego Garcia was picking his son up when immigration officials detained him and said his status changed. Days later, he was deported along with hundreds of men to the mega-prison in El Salvador where he later said he experienced psychological and physical torture.