D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to Trump Administration Expedited Removal Policy (Is an En Banc Petition to Follow?)
The D.C. Circuit panel vacated a district court stay, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to implement its expanded expedited removal policy. The judges issued differing opinions on due‑process concerns and the scope of judicial review. The case may be taken up en banc, where a more liberal full court could reconsider the panel’s decision.
- ▪A divided three‑judge panel of the D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s stay that had blocked the DHS from applying the expanded expedited removal process.
- ▪Judge Walker authored the majority opinion, finding the policy consistent with due process, while Judge Rao concurred in part and argued the issue should not be subject to judicial review.
- ▪Judge Wilkins partially concurred and partially dissented, asserting that the policy’s adoption violated due process and should be reviewed by courts.
- ▪The plaintiffs, Make the Road New York, challenged the Executive’s authority to broaden expedited removal, arguing it exceeded congressional limits.
- ▪Legal analysts anticipate a petition for en banc review, given the full circuit’s more liberal composition compared to the panel.
Reason Magazine files mainly under politics. We currently carry 504 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Reason.com |
| Canonical URL | https://reason.com/volokh/2026/06/24/d-c-circuit-rejects-challenge-to-trump-administration-expedited-removal-policy-is-an-en-banc-petition-to-follow/ |
| Publication time | Wed, 24 Jun 2026 14:26:09 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-06-24T14:40:50.920Z |
| Last seen | 2026-06-24T14:46:43.615Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | A3k8C1TepRGx |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Immigration D.C. Circuit Rejects Challenge to Trump Administration Expedited Removal Policy (Is an En Banc Petition to Follow?) Is the D.C. Circuit willing to allow "conservative" panel decisions on hot-button issues to stand? And is en banc review more than a way to ensure further review at One First Street? Jonathan H. Adler | 6.24.2026 10:26 AM Yesterday, in Make the Road New York v. Mullin, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated a district court's stay blocking the Department of Homeland Security from applying "expedited removal" processes more broadly. Judge Walker wrote the opinion for the court. Judge Rao concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. Judge Wilkins concurred in part and dissented in part.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Reason.com.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Reason.com
