For nearly three decades, there was a kind of unspoken geography to immigration enforcement. Expedited removal — the fastest, harshest deportation tool on the books — lived near the border. If you were deep in the interior of the country, working, raising a family, paying taxes, going about your life, the rules were different. You'd get a Notice to Appear. You'd get time. You'd get to stand in front of a judge.

As of this week, that geography no longer exists. A federal appeals court has erased the line, and the tool that used to live at the border can now reach anywhere in the United States. If you, or someone you love, doesn't have lawful immigration status, this is not a story to skim past. This is the moment to understand exactly what changed — and exactly what you can still do about it.

What Actually Happened This Week

On June 23, 2026, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 to vacate a lower court order that had blocked the nationwide expansion of expedited removal. The lower court's block — issued by a federal district judge last August — had found the policy likely violated due process protections and created a serious risk of wrongfully deporting people who had lived in the country for years.

The majority concluded that challengers were unlikely to succeed on their claim that the expanded policy violates constitutional due process protections, finding that DHS "exercised its discretion to apply its expedited-removal authority to the maximum extent allowed by law." Circuit Judge Robert Wilkins dissented, writing that the government's procedures do not give people a meaningful opportunity to prove they qualify for the two-year presence exception — a concern that remains central to how this policy plays out for real people on the ground.

This expansion was first directed by the administration in January 2025, applying expedited removal "to the maximum extent allowed by law" anywhere in the United States — not just within 100 miles of the border, where it had historically been confined. The legal fight over that expansion has now run through a preliminary injunction, a nationwide stay, and this latest appellate ruling, which lifts that stay and allows enforcement to resume while further appeals, including a possible request for Supreme Court review, are still possible.

What's Actually Different Now

What Expedited Removal Actually Is — and Isn't

If you've only ever heard about "deportation" in the context of immigration court, expedited removal will sound almost unrecognizable. Here's the practical difference:

Standard removal proceedings (what most people picture): DHS issues a Notice to Appear. The case goes before an immigration judge at EOIR. You have the right to legal counsel at your own expense, the right to present evidence and testimony, the right to apply for relief such as asylum, and the right to appeal an adverse decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals and, beyond that, federal court. This process can take months or years.

Expedited removal (what just expanded nationwide): An immigration officer who determines someone is inadmissible can order removal without referring the case to an immigration judge at all. There is generally no right to a hearing, no right to appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and removal can happen within days — sometimes faster. The law requires only that the person be given "notice and an opportunity to respond" — in practice, often a form shown or read to them, with a chance to say something in response.

Who Is at Greater Risk Right Now

The One Protection That Still Exists — and Why You Can't Count on Being Told About It

Here is the single most important legal detail in this entire ruling, and it deserves to be said plainly: if you have been continuously present in the United States for two years or more, you are not subject to expedited removal.

But the court's ruling specifically rejected the argument that DHS is constitutionally required to proactively inform people of this exception before applying expedited removal. In the majority's words, requiring the government to inform individuals of the two-year rule would, by the same logic, require informing them of "every other basis for contesting expedited removal" — a standard the court declined to impose.

How to Protect Yourself Right Now

1.  
   Gather Proof of Continuous Presence — Your Two-Year Shield

   If you have been in the U.S. for two years or longer, your proof of that presence is your single strongest legal protection against expedited removal. Collect and safely store the documents below — and keep copies in more than one location.

2.  
   Know How to Assert a Fear of Persecution or Torture

   If you fear returning to your home country because of persecution or torture, you have the right to say so and request a credible fear interview. This must be raised clearly and promptly — do not assume an officer will ask you about this on their own.

3.  
   Get Legal Help Before You Need It, Not After

   Because expedited removal can move within days — sometimes faster — waiting until after an encounter to seek legal help may be too late. Even a small missing detail in how the two-year exception or a fear claim is asserted can lead to serious, sometimes irreversible, consequences.

Documents That Help Prove Continuous Presence

• Tax records and W-2s or 1099s spanning the relevant period
• Pay stubs showing consistent employment over time
• Signed leases, mortgage statements, or utility bills in your name
• Bank statements showing a consistent U.S. address and activity
• Medical records and appointment history
• School enrollment records for yourself or your children
• Dated correspondence from government agencies, employers, or insurers

Keep originals or clear copies somewhere safe and easily accessible — and consider giving a copy to a trusted family member or your attorney, so the documentation exists even if you cannot immediately reach your home or belongings during an encounter.

What Happens Next: Is This the Final Word?

Not necessarily. The organizations behind the original legal challenge, including the American Civil Liberties Union, have indicated they are "exploring next steps," which could include seeking further review. Legal challenges of this magnitude often continue through additional appellate proceedings, and it remains possible that further litigation — potentially reaching the U.S. Supreme Court — could alter the policy's scope again.

For now, though, the practical reality is this: the policy is in effect nationwide, and individuals without lawful status anywhere in the country should treat this as the current operating legal landscape, not a temporary or theoretical risk. Staying current with legal developments matters — and working with an attorney who is actively tracking this litigation is one of the most valuable steps you can take.

Frequently Asked Questions