32:T4a0,

⚖️ Federal judge blocks mass deportation strategy nationwide: Judge Jia Cobb's ruling halts expedited removal expansion that would have affected millions of undocumented immigrants. This forces case-by-case hearings instead of administrative fast-tracking.
🏛️ Constitutional due process survives administration challenge: The decision affirms that Fifth Amendment protections apply to long-term residents facing deportation. This rejects government argument that unauthorized entry eliminates all constitutional rights.
📈 ICE courthouse arrest tactics ruled unconstitutional violation: Federal agents were positioning themselves in immigration court hallways to arrest asylum-seekers after hearings. Courts found this fast-tracking deportations without additional review violated due process.
🔄 Policy mirrors 2019 expansion that courts previously blocked: Similar expedited removal expansion was challenged and restricted during first Trump presidency. Only 17 people were actually removed under expanded authority between October 2020 and January 2021.

33:T4d5,The law gives the Department of Homeland Security authority to apply expedited removal beyond the border, but that power is not absolute and courts can review and block it. Congress wrote the expedited removal tool into law in IIRIRA (codified at INA §235(b)(1)), and DHS has long exercised—but not unilaterally insulated—its discretion to expand or limit who falls under it [1]. Policy rollouts in 2019 and January 2025 show DHS can announce broader use, but judges have repeatedly intervened when the agency’s implementation raised constitutional or procedural problems [2][3]. WHO WINS: DHS and an administration seeking faster removals gain a tool to speed deportations on paper. WHO LOSES: Noncitizens whose statutory protections or due‑process rights are bypassed, plus communities facing sudden enforcement actions. WHO DECIDES: Congress wrote the statute, the DHS secretary issues policy under that statute, and federal courts review whether the agency lawfully applied that authority. Intent vs impact: the administration intends to speed removals; courts have stopped or limited that impact when implementation threatens Fifth Amendment protections, showing the power is shared and contested, not unilateral [1][2][3].34:T52a,Expedited removal lets an immigration officer order removal without a full immigration‑court hearing in many cases, but it does not strip away asylum safeguards. The statute and agency policy require that anyone who expresses a fear of persecution or an intent to apply for asylum be referred for a credible‑fear screening, and asylum seekers can still obtain further review if they pass that screening [1][2]. The Jan. 2025 expansion raised prosecutors’ and judges’ alarms because, in practice, hurried screenings and arrests in non‑custodial settings risked denying meaningful access to those safeguards—so courts stepped in to pause the rollout [3]. WHO WINS: The government gains speed in enforcement when screenings operate smoothly. WHO LOSES: Vulnerable people who may be fearful, unrepresented, or unaware of asylum rules and thus risk being funneled past meaningful screenings. WHO DECIDES: DHS sets procedures, asylum officers perform credible‑fear interviews, and courts police whether the process meets constitutional due‑process standards. Intention vs impact: the administration framed the change as enforcing existing law more broadly; advocates documented cases where the change’s impact looked like practical elimination of meaningful asylum access, prompting legal challenges [1][2][3].35:T4a1,It’s true that a large share of the roughly 14 million unauthorized immigrants could fall into categories the expansion targets—people who entered without inspection and can’t prove two years’ continuous presence—so advocates and officials warned 'millions' might be affected on paper [1][2]. But whether millio