Law Biden Appointed Judge Just Severely Handicapped Trump's Mass Deportation Plan

Hog-train

Gold Belt
@Gold
Joined
Nov 26, 2003
Messages
16,833
Reaction score
20,629
TL : DR

1. Expedited removal is a rapid deportation procedure that has been used millions of times by previous Presidents to deport people. It allows immigration to remove certain illegals without a hearing before an immigration judge, but instead a lower level immigration official.
2. This procedure could be used for anyone that came in within the last 2 years and within a 100 miles of the border. What Trump did was remove the "100 miles of the border" requirement so anyone inside the interior that just came within the last two years illegally can be fast tracked.
3. This judge just "temporarily" blocked the administration from doing this. But the appeal process will probably take a year and a half.
4. Same exact thing happened in 2019 when Trump expanded expedited removal. An activist judge blocked it in June 2019 and the government appeal overturned it, but it took until Oct. 2021 when Trump was almost out of office.
5. This judge also ruled earlier this month, that he couldn't deport hundreds of thousands granted humanitarian parole by Biden. Federal judge blocks Trump from swiftly deporting immigrants granted parole

Essentially, this activist judge is trying to run out the clock so Trump can't do mass deportations and severely hampered his ability to do so. This appeal will take at least 1.5 years.

If this decision is allowed to be permanent, every single deportation will be a multi-years long process. Average wait time to see an immigration judge for the 1st time is 5 years. If you count appeals and everything, it takes 10 years or more.

A huge bulk of Trump's deportations from the interior of the country are through expedited removal. This is no longer available. The almost 1 million Venezuelans that came in during Biden's term will be almost impossible to remove.

Judge blocks Trump’s broad expansion of expedited removal of migrants

Judge Jia M. Cobb during her confirmation hearings.


The ruling says the administration’s policy violated due process rights as it sought to speed up the president’s mass deportation agenda.
August 29, 2025 at 9:54 p.m. EDT4 minutes ago


9a3bd4ef4f525c152ad95a8d041905d6bf44ad74.avif

The Department of Homeland Security logo in Washington, D.C.

A federal judge on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting undocumented immigrants detained away from the border without a court hearing, a setback for its mass deportation agenda.

In a 48-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb of D.C. wrote that the administration’s new policy in January to broadly expand a process known as “expedited removal” — which had previously been used to deport migrants detained at or near the U.S.-Mexico border — doesn’t provide adequate due process rights to those detained inside the country.


Cobb, in her ruling in a case brought by civil rights groups, wrote that “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. Were that right, not only noncitizens, but everyone would be at risk.”

Cobb, who was appointed President Joe Biden, said she was not questioning the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute and its “long-standing application” in border control. But she said 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.”

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration over the policy on behalf of Make the Road New York, an immigrant rights group, after the Department of Homeland Security said on Jan. 21 that it was expanding the use of expedited removal to speed up the deportation of undocumented migrants who have been in the country for two years or less.

Previously, expedited removal had only been used for migrants who were stopped within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the country for less than 14 days. Cobb said Friday that the Trump administration can continue to use the policy in those situations.


Cobb’s decision, if it remains in place, could significantly hamper the Trump administration’s mass deportation plan. President Donald Trump has vowed to enact the largest domestic deportation operation in history, seeking to deport 1 million immigrants during his first year in office. The ability to remove migrants without a court hearing was widely considered a key tool for the administration to swiftly carry out deportations.

While the Jan. 21 policy says that the DHS secretary has sole discretion to modify the scope of expedited removals, the ACLU argued the effort violated legal due process for migrants who have no meaningful notice or ability to dispute their deportations.

Under the expedited removal process — created in a 1996 law that intended to curb illegal immigration — migrants can request political asylum from immigration officers if they fear persecution upon being returned to their home countries. But if the immigration officer denies their claim, their only recourse is a cursory review from an immigration judge.


Trump’s first administration also sought to expand expedited removal but was initially blocked by a federal judge from implementing it. The policy was ultimately allowed to go into effect in October 2020. A total of 17 foreign nationals were removed between that month and Jan. 20, 2021, when Biden took office, according to a report from the Migration Policy Institute.

Biden rescinded the expanded policy.

Earlier this month, Cobb also temporarily blocked the Trump administration from rapidly deporting immigrants granted parole at a port of entry, a decision with the potential to impact hundreds of thousands of people.
 
Last edited:
The 100 miles thing seems frivolous. Wouldn't any illegal who crossed at the southern border have had to be within 100 miles at the time of entry at least? Also can't help but notice every time I see an activist judge its a woman. Even the Trump appointee who opposed Roe v Wade was a woman lol
 
I would think if American airspace counts as the southern border it would also count as the point of entry, or conversely if it wasnt the point of entry then they didnt enter from the southern border. But yes, some come in planes.
 
I don't understand this system you guys have where your President appoints judges for and with the intention of receiving presumed preferential treatment.

That isn't what law should be about.

It should be completely independent of any President's preferences.

Isn't it time the US started treating law seriously, as opposed to an extension of the political warfare?
 
I would think if American airspace counts as the southern border it would also count as the point of entry, or conversely if it wasnt the point of entry then they didnt enter from the southern border. But yes, some come in planes.
I’m sort of confused. If someone comes from South America and lands in middle America, they aren’t within 100 miles of the border, yeah?
 
It'll cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to deport every single illegal individual in legal costs, even the ones with lengthy criminal records.
 
Cobb's decision will not remain in place, nor will be followed pending an appeal. Just some more death throes from an activist judge. Meh.
 
Cobb's decision will not remain in place, nor will be followed pending an appeal. Just some more death throes from an activist judge. Meh.

But the appeal will take a year and a half.
 
But the appeal will take a year and a half.
I doubt it'll take that long, but in the meantime, I'm assuming the administration will find some wiggle room to let them continue what they're doing, until the ultimate decision comes down.
 
Will clearly lose in appeals and/or SCOTUS.

This is the same judge overseeing the fed governor case lol

Just one more piece of evidence of a corrupt judiciary by DEI freaks from a few institutions and rushed in under Biden and Obama, but just like corrupt fed governor Lisa cook,her judge who refuses to recuse herself is from the same sorority.

Yea no conflict of interest? Modern leftism is fascist, Marxist, authoritarian break through.
 
It'll cost tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars to deport every single illegal individual in legal costs, even the ones with lengthy criminal records.

I get what you're saying, and part of me says what a valid point.

However, it's part of the problem itself that these dirty politicians put you in. Do you now have to choose a solution between issues with a short term but long term tradeoff?

The system sucks in so many ways but the core principles of the country separate it from others. To fade this or that constitional element "just this once for this issue" is what creates the precedent for repeatedly erroding and then surely removing certain constitutional amendments and rights. Slippery slope?

It's like, do you have to play it by the book even if that process costs more and takes longer now, or because you're right, you look the other way in the process to satisfy the means.
 
I doubt it'll take that long, but in the meantime, I'm assuming the administration will find some wiggle room to let them continue what they're doing, until the ultimate decision comes down.

It took that long when Trump expanded expedited removal in June 2019. Trump expanded expedited removal which got stopped by a judge. The appeal was successful, but it finished in Oct 2021 - almost a year and a half later. That was toward the end of his first term, so he only managed to deport 17 people with expedited removal. Basically the courts ran out the clock on him.

Trump has already had a half a year in office. This appeal will probably take a year and a half. So that is about half his term where deportations are basically going to be halted to a crawl.

And no the judge's decision did not give any wiggle room. They have to stop all expedited removals for this criteria ASAP.

The system sucks in so many ways but the core principles of the country separate it from others. To fade this or that constitional element "just this once for this issue" is what creates the precedent for repeatedly erroding and then surely removing certain constitutional amendments and rights. Slippery slope?

But this judge already acknowledges expedited removal is constitutional in her statements with the decision.

"Cobb, who was appointed President Joe Biden, said she was not questioning the constitutionality of the expedited removal statute and its “long-standing application” in border control."
 
Last edited:
Well yeah, these DEI appointees weren't chosen because of their legal knowledge or fairness, they're chosen to tick a box and rule how they're told.

This lady wasn't even a judge when Biden appointed her, she was a public defender then worked for one of these grift firms that sue everybody and call them racist and sexist and transphobic.



On June 30, 2023, Relman Colfax filed this gender discrimination lawsuit against the Mukwonago Area School District (MASD) and its superintendent, Joe Koch, for denying Jane Doe #1, an eleven-year-old transgender girl, access to girls’ restrooms at school.
 
Back
Top