deportations

A federal appeals court ruled on September 2 that the Trump administration cannot use an 18th-century law to quickly deport suspected gang members.

Its decision largely hinged on the administration’s assertion that the Venezuela-based gang Tren de Aragua had invaded the United States.

“Applying our obligation to interpret the (Alien Enemies Act), we conclude that the findings do not support that an invasion or a predatory incursion has occurred,” the ruling said.

The conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals’ 2-1 decision effectively blocks the government from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act’s fast-track process to deport people it says belong to the gang. Such an invasion or incursion is a necessary condition for the US to deport people using the law.

Here are five things to know about the Alien Enemies Act, the court’s ruling and what could come next:

How did the Trump administration use the law before the ruling?

On March 15, President Donald Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act, which lets the president detain and deport people from a “hostile nation or government” without a hearing when the US is either at war with that country or the country has “perpetrated, attempted, or threatened” an invasion or raid legally called a “predatory incursion” against the US.

That same day, the Trump administration deported more than 230 Venezuelan men to the Center for Terrorism Confinement, or CECOT, a maximum-security El Salvador prison. An investigation by ProPublica and other news organisations found the vast majority of the men had no criminal records. And none of the men’s names appeared in a list of alleged gang members kept by Venezuelan law enforcement and international law enforcement agency Interpol.

In July, as part of a prisoner exchange between the US and Venezuela, the men deported from the US and held in CECOT were returned to Venezuela.

Several legal challenges followed after Trump’s invocation of the law. But the September 2 appellate court’s ruling is the first to address whether Trump legally invoked it.

What did the appeals court say about an invasion?

The court said Tren de Aragua has not invaded or carried out a predatory incursion against the US.

The appellate court disagreed with Trump’s March assertion that “evidence irrefutably demonstrates that (Tren de Aragua) has invaded the United States.” To determine whether Tren de Aragua had invaded or carried out a predatory incursion, the court had to define what each of those terms meant.

“We define an invasion for purposes of the (Alien Enemies Act) as an act of war involving the entry into this country by a military force of or at least directed by another country or nation, with a hostile intent,” the ruling said.

As for a predatory incursion, the court said the term “described armed forces of some size and cohesion, engaged in something less than an invasion, whose objectives could vary widely, and are directed by a foreign government or nation”.

The court ruled that a country “encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organised force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States”.

The court said the mass migration of Venezuelan immigrants did not constitute an armed or an organised force.

Was any part of the ruling favourable to the Trump administration?

The court said it does not have the power to rule on the accuracy of the information the Trump administration presented about how closely Tren de Aragua is tied to the Venezuelan government led by President Nicolas Maduro.

But the court ruled that Tren de Aragua can be considered a government or nation for the law’s purposes, assuming Trump’s assertion is true that the group is being led by the Venezuelan government.

Nevertheless, the court ruled, there’s no invasion.

Trump’s assertion about the Maduro administration’s links to Tren de Aragua was contradicted by an intelligence community assessment.

“While Venezuela’s permissive environment enables (Tren de Aragua) to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States,” the National Intelligence Council said in an April report.

In May, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard fired two National Intelligence Council officials who wrote the assessment, according to The Washington Post.

What did the court say about due process?

The appellate court said, based on available information, an updated process the government is using to inform people they will be deported under the law seemed to follow due process requirements. However, it asked the lower federal court to rule on what constitutes sufficient government notice.

In May, before the government updated its notification process, the US Supreme Court ruled in an unsigned opinion that the Trump administration hadn’t given immigrants who it said it would deport under the Alien Enemies Act enough time to exercise their due process rights.

At the time, the government had given immigrants about 24 hours’ notice that they would be deported without information about how to contest the deportation. The Supreme Court asked the appellate court to determine how much notice is necessary for the government to uphold immigrants’ constitutional due process rights.

While the case was being decided by the appellate court, the Trump administration updated the document it gives immigrants as notice that they will be deported under the law. Part of the change included giving immigrants seven days to challenge the deportation.

What will likely happen next?

The appellate court’s decision stops Alien Enemies Act deportations in the three states in its jurisdiction: Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. Other courts could use the ruling as precedent in their decisions.

The Trump administration can appeal the appellate court ruling either to the full appeals court or to the US Supreme Court. The White House didn’t specify whether it would appeal or to which court.

“The authority to conduct national security operations in defence of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the president,” Abigail Jackson, a White House spokesperson, said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration from carrying out speedy deportations of undocumented migrants detained in the interior of the United States.

The move is a setback for President Trump’s efforts to expand the use of the federal expedited removal statute to quickly remove some undocumented migrants without appearing before a judge first.

Trump promised to engineer a massive deportation operation during his 2024 campaign if voters returned him to the White House. And he set a goal of carrying out 1 million deportations a year in his second term.

But U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb suggested the administration’s expanded use of the expedited removal of migrants is trampling on due process rights.

“In defending this skimpy process, the Government makes a truly startling argument: that those who entered the country illegally are entitled to no process under the Fifth Amendment, but instead must accept whatever grace Congress affords them,” Cobb wrote in a 48-page opinion issued Friday night. “Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.”

The Department of Homeland Security announced shortly after Trump came to office in January that it was expanding the use of expedited removal, the fast-track deportation of undocumented migrants who have been in the U.S. less than two years.

The effort has triggered lawsuits by the American Civil Liberties Union and immigrant rights groups.

Homeland Security said in a statement that Cobb’s “ruling ignores the President’s clear authorities under both Article II of the Constitution and the plain language of federal law.” It said Trump “has a mandate to arrest and deport the worst of the worst” and that ”we have the law, facts, and common sense on our side.”

Before the administration’s push to expand such speedy deportations, expedited removal was used only for migrants who were stopped within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the U.S. for less than 14 days.

Cobb, an appointee of President Biden, didn’t question the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute or its application at the border.

“It merely holds that in applying the statute to a huge group of people living in the interior of the country who have not previously been subject to expedited removal, the Government must afford them due process,” she wrote.

She added that “prioritizing speed over all else will inevitably lead the Government to erroneously remove people via this truncated process.”

Cobb earlier this month agreed to temporarily block the administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole. The ruling could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

In that case the judge said Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand expedited removal for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After the arrests, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

Madhani writes for the Associated Press.

THERE is a reckoning coming. The people of Britain have had enough.

A new poll by Find Out Now has Reform UK winning a majority of 140 seats at the next general election. The big poll-of-polls gives us a 10-point lead. People are fed up. And one thing they are fed up with the most is illegal immigration.

6

6

6

I went along to watch a protest outside the Britannia Hotel in London’s Canary Wharf, now a luxury hostel for asylum seekers, and felt for myself how high feelings are running.

Protesters like the famous Pink Ladies don’t want these illegal immigrants in their communities. Does anybody? Who voted for this madness?

That’s why our party, Reform UK, is backing more peaceful protests and asking people to demand that their local councils take action to empty the migrant hotels. But we can’t stop there.

We need to detain and deport illegal immigrants. Then I think they’re going to stop coming, and we can get back to some sort of peace and normality.

It’s no wonder people are angry. Just look at the shocking numbers that came out this past week.

We learned that, in the year up to June 2025, 110,000 more migrants applied for asylum in Britain –that’s the highest number since records began. More than 50,000 illegal immigrants have landed on our beaches since Labour were elected last July.

At the end of June, 32,100 asylum seekers were housed in hotels at taxpayers’ expense – up another 8 per cent since Keir Starmer moved into 10 Downing Street.

Over that same year, the Labour government spent £4.76 billion managing the asylum mess that they and their Tory predecessors have created.

This outrageous sum is the equivalent of hiring 86,500 more police officers, or 16 million winter fuel payments for British pensioners at the higher rate.

If I were a young male over the Channel in a migrant camp, I’d be thinking to myself it doesn’t matter where I’m from or what I’ve done in the past, get on a small boat to Britain and within 24 hours I could be in a four-star hotel, three meals a day, wifi, mobile phone, free to roam the streets and do pretty much whatever you want, because the authorities haven’t got the foggiest who you are.

What have we done as a nation? We see it in the news every week now, that an asylum seeker has been either charged or found guilty of disgusting attacks on women and girls.

The door’s open, we’ve invited these people in, some of them serious wrong ‘uns, and treated them like honoured guests.

But the tide is starting to turn. Last week the decent people of Epping in Essex won a big victory for us all, when the high court ruled that asylum seekers must leave the town’s Bell Hotel.

Parents and concerned residents had been protesting outside the hotel since an illegal migrant housed there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl.

They were slandered as “far-right” lunatics by Labour and the BBC, and attacked by leftie “Antifa” thugs who we saw being bussed in by the police! But they bravely stood up and won, despite home secretary Yvette Cooper shamefully hiring expensive lawyers to attack them in court.

People around the country are now protesting outside migrant hotels and telling their councils to take action. Nigel Farage was the first to call for more peaceful protests, and the councils that Reform won in the May elections will do everything in their power to follow Epping’s lead.

Now we need to go further. Next week, Reform UK will announce our proposals for mass deportations that will finally stop the boats and tackle the crisis.

And we are very clear that, to make this happen, the UK will need to quit the European Convention on Human Rights, which lets liberal foreign judges override the sovereignty of our parliament on immigration law.

National emergency

This is a national emergency. Labour’s latest scheme, to move migrants from hotels into homes into our communities, can only make matters worse.

But let’s not forget that the last Conservative government started the problem. So it’s a bit rich for them to start attacking migrant hotels now.

When I was a Tory MP, I spoke up asking the government to detain illegal immigrants in secure camps ready for deportation. Instead, they housed them in hotels.

I was constantly told to shut up by the “One Nation” lot of Conservative MPs. This is of their making, and they should all apologise right now.

Reform Uk stands foursquare with the people protesting peacefully across Britain. And we will defend free speech against the authorities that want to lock up anybody who speaks out.

On a protest in my constituency of Ashfield in Nottinghamshire, some women in their sixties and seventies came up to me and said Lee, are we really far-right? And I said no, you’re just right.

6

6

6

WASHINGTON — President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan visited Capitol Hill just weeks after Inauguration Day, with other administration officials and a singular message: They needed money for the White House’s border security and mass deportation agenda.

By summer, Congress delivered.

The Republican Party’s big bill of tax breaks and spending cuts that Trump signed into law July 4 included what’s arguably the biggest boost of funds yet to the Department of Homeland Security — nearly $170 billion, almost double its annual budget.

The staggering sum is powering the nation’s sweeping new Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations, delivering gripping scenes of people being pulled off city streets and from job sites across the nation — the cornerstone of Trump’s promise for the largest domestic deportation operation in American history. Homeland Security confirmed over the weekend ICE is working to set up detention sites at certain military bases.

“We’re getting them out at record numbers,” Trump said at the White House bill signing ceremony. “We have an obligation to, and we’re doing it.”

Money flows, and so do questions

The crush of new money is setting off alarms in Congress and beyond, raising questions from lawmakers in both major political parties who are expected to provide oversight. The bill text provided general funding categories — almost $30 billion for ICE officers, $45 billion for detention facilities, $10 billion for the office of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — but few policy details or directives. Homeland Security recently announced $50,000 ICE hiring bonuses.

And it’s not just the big bill’s fresh infusion of funds fueling the president’s agenda of 1 million deportations a year.

In the months since Trump took office, his administration has been shifting as much as $1 billion from the Federal Emergency Management Agency and other accounts to pay for immigration enforcement and deportation operations, lawmakers said.

“Your agency is out of control,” Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told Noem during a Senate committee hearing in the spring.

The senator warned that Homeland Security would “go broke” by July.

Noem quickly responded that she always lives within her budget.

But Murphy said later in a letter to Homeland Security, objecting to its repurposing funds, that ICE was being directed to spend at an “indefensible and unsustainable rate to build a mass deportation army,” often without approval from Congress.

This past week, the new Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Andrew Garbarino of New York, along with a subcommittee chairman, Rep. Michael Guest of Mississippi, requested a briefing from Noem on the border security components of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA, which included $46 billion over the next four years for Trump’s long-sought U.S.-Mexico border wall.

“We write today to understand how the Department plans to outlay this funding to deliver a strong and secure homeland for years to come,” the GOP lawmakers said in a letter to the homeland security secretary, noting border apprehensions are at record lows.

“We respectfully request that you provide Committee staff with a briefing on the Department’s plan to disburse OBBBA funding,” they wrote, seeking a response by Aug. 22.

DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement to The Associated Press the department is in daily discussions with the committee “to honor all briefing requests including the spend plan for the funds allocated” through the new law.

“ICE is indeed pursuing all available options to expand bedspace capacity,” she said. “This process does include housing detainees at certain military bases, including Fort Bliss.”

Deportations move deep into communities

All together, it’s what observers on and off Capitol Hill see as a fundamental shift in immigration policy — enabling DHS to reach far beyond the U.S. southern border and deep into communities to conduct raids and stand up detention facilities as holding camps for immigrants.

The Defense Department, the Internal Revenue Service and other agencies are being enlisted in what Kathleen Bush-Joseph, an analyst at the Migration Policy Institute, calls a “whole of government” approach.

“They’re orienting this huge shift,” Bush-Joseph said, as deportation enforcement moves “inward.”

The flood of cash comes when Americans’ views on immigration are shifting. Polling showed 79% of U.S. adults say immigration is a “good thing” for the country, having jumped substantially from 64% a year ago, according to Gallup. Only about 2 in 10 U.S. adults say immigration is a bad thing right now.

At the same time, Trump’s approval rating on immigration has slipped. According to a July AP-NORC poll, 43% of U.S. adults said they approved of his handling of immigration, down slightly from 49% in March.

Americans are watching images of often masked officers arresting college students, people at Home Depot lots, parents, workers and a Tunisian musician. Stories abound of people being whisked off to detention facilities, often without allegations of wrongdoing beyond being unauthorized to remain in the U.S.

A new era of detention centers

Detention centers are being stood up, from “Alligator Alcatraz” in Florida to the repurposed federal prison at Leavenworth, Kansas, and the proposed new “Speedway Slammer” in Indiana. Flights are ferrying migrants not just home or to El Salvador’s notorious mega-prison but far away to Africa and beyond.

Homan has insisted in recent interviews those being detained and deported are the “worst of the worst,” and he dismissed as “garbage” the reports showing many of those being removed have not committed violations beyond their irregular immigration status.

“There’s no safe haven here,” Homan said recently outside the White House. “We’re going to do exactly what President Trump has promised the American people he’d do.”

Back in February, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, the Republican chairman of the Budget Committee, emerged from their private meeting saying Trump administration officials were “begging for money.”

As Graham got to work, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee and a leading deficit hawk, proposed an alternative border package, at $39 billion, a fraction of the size.

But Paul’s proposal was quickly dismissed. He was among a handful of GOP lawmakers who joined all Democrats in voting against the final tax and spending cuts bill.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.

Rwanda has confirmed it will accept deported migrants from the United States, as US President Donald Trump continues to push for mass deportation from the North American country.

On Tuesday, a spokesperson for the Rwandan government, Yolande Makolo, acknowledged that the African country had agreed to receive up to 250 deported individuals.

Rwanda is now the third African country, after South Sudan and Eswatini, to strike a deal with the US to accept non-citizen deportees.

“Rwanda has agreed with the United States to accept up to 250 migrants, in part because nearly every Rwandan family has experienced the hardships of displacement, and our societal values are founded on reintegration and rehabilitation,” Makolo said in a statement obtained by the Reuters news agency.

But the Trump administration’s efforts to rapidly deport migrants from the US have raised myriad human rights concerns, not least for sending people to “third-party countries” they have no personal connections to.

Some of those countries, including Rwanda, have faced criticisms for their human rights records, leading advocates to fear for the safety of deported migrants.

Other critics, meanwhile, have blasted Trump for using African countries as a “dumping ground” for migrants with criminal records.

In this week’s statement, Makolo appeared to anticipate some of those criticisms, underscoring that Rwanda would have the final say over who could arrive in the country.

“Under the agreement, Rwanda has the ability to approve each individual proposed for resettlement,” she said.

“Those approved will be provided with workforce training, healthcare, and accommodation support to jumpstart their lives in Rwanda, giving them the opportunity to contribute to one of the fastest-growing economies in the world over the last decade.”

Trump’s mass deportation campaign

In 2024, Trump successfully campaigned for re-election in the US on the premise that he would expel the country’s population of undocumented immigrants, a group estimated to number around 11 million.

But many of those people have been longtime members of their communities, and critics quickly pointed out that Trump lacked the infrastructure needed for such a large-scale deportation effort.

In response, the Trump administration has surged money to immigration-related projects. For example, his “One Big Beautiful Bill”, which was signed into law in July, earmarked $45bn for immigration detention centres, many of which will be run by private contractors.

An additional $4.1bn in the law is devoted to hiring and training more officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with another $2.1bn set aside for bonuses.

But the Trump administration has made expelling migrants from the country a top priority, prompting legal challenges and backlash to the rapid pace of such deportations.

Critics say deported migrants have been denied their right to due process, with little to no time allotted to challenge their removals.

Then, there are the cases where undocumented migrants have been deported to “third-party countries” where they may not even speak the language.

Within weeks of taking office in January, Trump began deporting citizens of countries like India, China, Iran and Afghanistan to places like Panama, where migrants were imprisoned in a hotel and later a detention camp.

Trump also accused more than 200 men, many of them Venezuelan, of being gang members in order to authorise their expedited removal to El Salvador in March. Lawyers have since cast doubt on Trump’s allegations, arguing that many of their clients were deemed to be gang members based on little more than their tattoos and fashion choices.

El Salvador reportedly received $6m as part of a deal to hold the men in a maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Centre or CECOT, where human rights abuses have been documented.

The men were ultimately released last month as part of a prisoner exchange with Venezuela, but a federal court in the US continues to weigh whether the Trump administration violated a judge’s order by allowing the deportation flights to leave in the first place.

Deportations to Africa

In May, the Trump administration unveiled efforts to start “third-party” deportations to countries in Africa as well, sparking further concerns about human rights.

Initially, Libya was floated as a destination, and migrants were reportedly loaded onto a flight that was prepared to take off when a judge blocked its departure on due process grounds.

The Libyan government later denied reports that it was willing to accept deported, non-citizen migrants from the US.

But the Trump administration proceeded later that month to send eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan, a country the US State Department deems too dangerous for Americans to travel to.

That flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, after a judge in Massachusetts ruled that the eight men on board were not given an adequate opportunity to challenge their removals.

Seven of them hailed from Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and Myanmar. Only one was reportedly from South Sudan.

The Trump administration said all eight had criminal records, calling them “sickos” and “barbaric”. A spokesperson pledged to have them in South Sudan by the US Independence Day holiday on July 4.

The US Supreme Court paved the way for that to happen in late June, when it issued a brief, unsigned order allowing the deportation to South Sudan to proceed. The six conservative members of the bench sided with the Trump administration, while the three left-leaning justices issued a vehement dissent.

They argued that there was no evidence that the Trump administration had ascertained the eight men would not be tortured while in South Sudan’s custody. They also described the deportations as too hasty, depriving the men of their chance to appeal.

“The affected class members lacked any opportunity to research South Sudan, to determine whether they would face risks of torture or death there, or to speak to anyone about their concerns,” the justices wrote, calling the government’s actions “flagrantly unlawful”.

In mid-July, the Trump administration also began deportations to Eswatini, a tiny, landlocked country ruled by an absolute monarchy. It identified the five deported individuals as hailing from Laos, Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba and Yemen.

“This flight took individuals so uniquely barbaric that their home countries refused to take them back,” administration spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin wrote on social media.

Lawyers for the five men have since reported they were denied access to their clients, who are being held in a maximum-security prison.

Cosying up to Trump?

Little is known so far about the newly announced deportations to Rwanda. It is not yet clear when deportation flights to Rwanda will begin, nor who will be included on the flights.

Reuters, however, reported that Rwanda will be paid for accepting the deportations in the form of a grant. The amount is not yet known.

Rwanda also has set parameters for whom it may accept. No child sex offenders will be allowed among the deportation flights, and the country will only accept deported individuals with no criminal background or whose prison terms are complete.

But the deportation announcement continues a trend of Rwandan authorities seeking closer relations with the Trump administration.

In June, President Trump claimed credit for bringing peace between Rwanda and its neighbour, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

He invited leaders from both countries to attend a ceremony at the White House and sign a peace deal. Critics, however, noted that the deal was vague and did not mention Rwanda’s support for the M23 paramilitary group, which has carried out deadly attacks in the DRC.

The deal also appeared to pave the way for Trump to pursue another one of his priorities: gaining access to valuable minerals in the region, like copper and lithium, that are key to technology development.

In an interview with The Associated Press news agency, Rwandan political analyst Gonzaga Muganwa said that his government’s recent manoeuvres seem to reflect the mantra that “appeasing President Trump pays”.

Muganwa explained that Tuesday’s agreement to accept migrants from the US will strengthen the two countries’ shared bond.

“This agreement enhances Rwanda’s strategic interest of having good relationships with the Trump administration,” he said.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge agreed on Friday to temporarily block the Trump administration’s efforts to expand fast-track deportations of immigrants who legally entered the U.S. under a process known as humanitarian parole — a ruling that could benefit hundreds of thousands of people.

U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb in Washington, D.C., ruled that the Department of Homeland Security exceeded its statutory authority in its effort to expand “expedited removal” for many immigrants. The judge said those immigrants are facing perils that outweigh any harm from “pressing pause” on the administration’s plans.

The case “presents a question of fair play” for people fleeing oppression and violence in their home countries, Cobb said in her 84-page order.

“In a world of bad options, they played by the rules,” she wrote. “Now, the Government has not only closed off those pathways for new arrivals but changed the game for parolees already here, restricting their ability to seek immigration relief and subjecting them to summary removal despite statutory law prohibiting the Executive Branch from doing so.”

Fast-track deportations allow immigration officers to remove somebody from the U.S. without seeing a judge first. In immigration cases, parole allows somebody applying for admission to the U.S. to enter the country without being held in detention.

Immigrants’ advocacy groups sued Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to challenge three recent DHS agency actions that expanded expedited removal. A surge of arrests at immigration courts highlights the lawsuit’s high stakes.

The judge’s ruling applies to any non-citizen who has entered the U.S. through the parole process at a port of entry. She suspended the challenged DHS actions until the case’s conclusion.

Cobb said the case’s “underlying question” is whether people who escaped oppression will have the chance to “plead their case within a system of rules.”

“Or, alternatively, will they be summarily removed from a country that — as they are swept up at checkpoints and outside courtrooms, often by plainclothes officers without explanation or charges — may look to them more and more like the countries from which they tried to escape?” she added.

A plaintiffs’ attorney, Justice Action Center legal director Esther Sung, described the ruling as a “huge win” for hundreds of thousands of immigrants and their families. Sung said many people are afraid to attend routine immigration hearings out of fear of getting arrested.

“Hopefully this decision will alleviate that fear,” Sung said.

Since May, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers have positioned themselves in hallways to arrest people after judges accept government requests to dismiss deportation cases. After being arrested, the government renews deportation proceedings but under fast-track authority.

President Trump sharply expanded fast-track authority in January, allowing immigration officers to deport someone without first seeing a judge. Although fast-track deportations can be put on hold by filing an asylum claim, people may be unaware of that right and, even if they are, can be swiftly removed if they fail an initial screening.

“Expedited removal” was created under a 1996 law and has been used widely for people stopped at the border since 2004. Trump attempted to expand those powers nationwide to anyone in the country less than two years in 2019 but was held up in court. His latest efforts amount to a second try.

ICE exercised its expanded authority sparingly at first during Trump’s second term but has since relied on it for aggressive enforcement in immigration courts and in “workplace raids,” according to plaintiffs’ attorneys.

Kunzelman and Spagat write for the Associated Press. Spagat reported from San Diego.

The White House is facing criticism after it jumped on the viral Jet2holidays TikTok trend to promote its controversial immigration crackdown. The use of audio from the popular British ad has angered singer Jess Glynne, whose song appears in the video.