President Donald Trump’s controversial approach to immigration enforcement has sparked yet another legal battle. A new lawsuit has been filed in Washington’s federal court challenging the expansion of fast-track deportation policies for individuals unable to prove long-term residency in the United States.
The case, brought by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) on behalf of the immigration advocacy group Make the Road New York, targets a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rule issued on 21 January. Under this policy, immigration officers are authorised to conduct “expedited removals” for individuals without legal status who cannot provide evidence of US residency for at least two years. Unlike traditional deportation processes, this rule enables swift deportations without court hearings or judicial review.
A return to hardline immigration policies
Trump has consistently prioritised stringent immigration measures, a hallmark of his presidency. This new rule is a reinstatement of an expanded fast-track deportation policy initially implemented during his first term. The policy faced multiple legal challenges, but a federal appeals court allowed it to proceed in 2020, though not all claims of its alleged unlawfulness were resolved.
The Biden administration replaced Trump’s original policy with a narrower rule limiting expedited removals to individuals found within 100 miles of a US land border who could not prove they had been in the country for more than two weeks. Trump’s revised policy, however, extends beyond border zones, subjecting anyone in the country to expedited deportation if they cannot demonstrate a two-year residency.
Legal arguments against the policy
The ACLU and its co-plaintiffs argue that the expanded policy undermines due process and exposes vulnerable individuals, including US citizens and asylum seekers, to potential wrongful deportation.
In their court filing, the challengers stated, “The expedited removal process is rife with errors and results in widespread violations of individuals’ legal rights. US citizens and people with bona fide fears of persecution in their home countries have been wrongly deported under similar policies in the past.”
They further contend that the policy breaches legal standards, denying affected individuals the opportunity to seek relief or contest their deportation. “Without relief from this court, individuals living anywhere in this country are at risk of being separated from their families and expelled from the country without any meaningful process,” the ACLU lawyers wrote.
Broader context of Trump’s immigration policies
This lawsuit is the latest in a series of legal challenges to Trump’s immigration agenda. His administration has faced ongoing litigation over an executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship for children born in the US to undocumented parents or individuals on non-permanent visas.
Critics have labelled Trump’s immigration policies as draconian, accusing his administration of targeting vulnerable communities and undermining human rights. Supporters, however, argue that such measures are necessary to secure the nation’s borders and enforce immigration laws.
During his presidency, Trump frequently framed immigration as a threat to American jobs, security, and cultural identity. This hardline stance has been a central pillar of his political platform, resonating with his base but provoking fierce opposition from advocacy groups and legal experts.
Implications of the lawsuit
If successful, the lawsuit could halt the implementation of Trump’s expanded deportation policy, marking a significant setback for his broader immigration agenda. However, legal experts note that the outcome is uncertain, particularly given the contentious history of immigration litigation in the US.
Spokespeople for the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice declined to comment on the lawsuit, reflecting the sensitivity of the issue.
More Read
The stakes are high for millions of undocumented individuals and their families, many of whom have lived in the US for years and established roots in their communities. Advocacy groups warn that the policy could lead to the deportation of people with legitimate claims to asylum or other forms of legal protection.
A growing divide
This lawsuit highlights the polarising nature of Trump’s immigration policies, which have deepened divisions between those advocating for stricter enforcement and those championing a more inclusive approach.
As the case unfolds, it will serve as a litmus test for the limits of executive authority over immigration and the ability of the judiciary to check policies perceived as overreaching or unjust. The outcome will not only impact those directly affected but could also set a precedent for future administrations’ approaches to immigration enforcement.
For now, the future of Trump’s fast-track deportation policy hangs in the balance, awaiting the scrutiny of the courts and the judgement of public opinion.
