How has DHS’s use of expedited removal changed since 2004 and what court challenges have followed?

1. Origins and the 2004 inflection point: a border procedure migrates inland

Expedited removal was created by Congress in 1996 as a fast‑track to remove inadmissible noncitizens at ports of entry or soon after arrival, and in 2004 DHS exercised available authority to expand it to noncitizens apprehended within 100 miles of the border and who had been in the country for short periods—transforming expedited removal from a purely port‑of‑entry practice into a tool with a fixed interior zone of application ^{[4] [5] [6]}.

2. The 2019 rule and the first major courtroom rebuke

In July 2019 DHS issued a Federal Register notice to expand expedited removal nationwide to noncitizens present fewer than two years, prompting lawsuits from advocacy groups that argued the agency bypassed the Administrative Procedure Act’s notice‑and‑comment obligations and violated due process; a D.C. district judge granted a nationwide preliminary injunction in September 2019, blocking implementation while litigation proceeded ^{[2] [7]}.

3. Appeals, temporary implementation, and the 2020–2025 seesaw

The D.C. Circuit reversed the preliminary injunction on June 23, 2020, allowing DHS to implement the broader designation by October 2020, and the expansion therefore briefly took force—only to see the issue resurface with renewed policy moves and an aggressive expansion in 2025 after an executive order and Federal Register notice directed new application of expedited removal, including use against some parolees and dismissal‑and‑arrest tactics aimed at moving people from ongoing immigration proceedings into fast‑track deportations ^{[3] [8] [9]}.

4. Litigation themes and the constitutional fault lines

Across multiple cases plaintiffs have pressed three recurring arguments: that DHS violated the APA by failing to engage in required rulemaking, that the new designations transgress Fifth Amendment due process rights by denying meaningful procedural safeguards to people present in the interior, and that the agency failed to reckon with the expansion’s practical harms and statutory limits—claims that a district judge found likely to succeed in at least one challenge and which have produced stays and motions to postpone effective dates ^{[7] [1] [10]}.

5. Tactics, gaps in the record, and the unresolved practical stakes

Advocates and legal briefs document tactics tied to the expansion—termination notices to parolees, requests by DHS attorneys to dismiss pending immigration court cases to funnel people into expedited removal, and mass use of expedited procedures that can result in deportations in as little as a single day—yet existing sources also show a back‑and‑forth where courts have alternately enjoined and permitted expansions, leaving the ultimate scope contingent on ongoing litigation in D.C. federal courts and the interpretation of statutory language that gives the Secretary discretion to designate classes for expedited removal ^{[9] [8] [6]}.

6. Where the cases stand and what courts are weighing

Recent filings—Make the Road New York and coalition suits such as Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights v. Noem and CHIRLA challenges—focus on whether DHS lawfully expanded its authority and whether the expanded use of fast‑track removals is constitutionally tenable for people who are long past initial entry; courts in the D.C. district have been a central battleground, issuing stays and assessing likelihoods of success on APA and due process claims while appeals loom, so the legal posture remains contested and evolving ^{[1] [11] [7]}.