Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How often were people removed administratively without a hearing during Obama's presidency?
Executive summary
Available reporting and data compiled by independent analysts find that during the Obama administration (FY2009–FY2016) a large majority of removals were carried out through administrative “nonjudicial” processes that do not include a hearing before an immigration judge — studies and summaries put the share typically between about 58% and 84% in individual years and roughly 74% on average across the eight years [1] [2]. Advocacy groups and policy analysts highlight specific administrative mechanisms — expedited removal, reinstatement of removal and stipulated removals — and show the share of removals without court hearings rose substantially compared with earlier eras [2] [3].
1. How “administrative” removals are defined and why it matters
Administrative or nonjudicial removals refer to deportation procedures that bypass immigration-court hearings: expedited removal (often at or near the border), reinstatement of prior removal orders for returnees, and stipulated removals where a person signs away the right to a hearing [1] [4] [3]. The procedural difference is consequential: people subject to these processes generally do not see an immigration judge, often lack counsel, and have limited or no appeal rights — a core due-process concern raised by civil‑liberties groups [2] [1].
2. The basic numbers analysts report for Obama years
Aggregating Department of Homeland Security data, fact-checkers and analysts report that from FY2009 through FY2016 more than 3 million people were formally removed, and the proportion of those removed without an immigration‑court hearing ranged from roughly 58% to 84% in particular years, with an average around 74% across the eight years [1]. The Migration Policy Institute and ACLU summaries underline a shift toward nonjudicial removals, with one snapshot claim that about 75% of removals did not involve a judge [2] [5].
3. Where the higher year‑to‑year percentages come from
Certain year-specific analyses produced high percentages: for example, the ACLU’s 2013‑centered reporting found around 83% of that year’s removals were “summary” removals — a figure frequently cited in critiques of Obama-era enforcement [1] [6]. Wikipedia and other summaries also note that expedited removal usage spiked in specific years (for instance, expedited removal was used about 188,000 times in FY2014), contributing to year‑to‑year variation [4].
4. Policy choices and stated enforcement priorities
Observers link the rise in nonjudicial removals to policy choices: the Obama DHS emphasized removing recent unauthorized border crossers and noncitizens with criminal records, and it scaled up tools that allow DHS to carry out rapid administrative removals rather than routing cases to immigration courts [5] [3]. That shift produced fewer court hearings relative to total enforcement actions compared with the pre‑1996 judicial-dominated system [2] [3].
5. Competing perspectives and the political context
Civil‑liberties organizations (e.g., ACLU) argue the rise of nonjudicial removals sacrificed due process and caused hardship for families and individuals [6] [2]. Policy analysts such as Migration Policy Institute frame the record as more nuanced: enforcement priorities changed and removals of recent crossers rose, but overall removals declined compared with previous administrations due in part to reduced border flows [5]. Both perspectives rely on the same DHS-derived counts but emphasize different implications — fairness and rights versus enforcement strategy and migration trends [2] [5].
6. Limits of available reporting and what’s not clear
Available sources do not provide a single definitive, year‑by‑year table in this set that lists exact counts for each administrative removal category across all eight years; instead they report ranges, averages, and snapshots [1] [2]. Also, some sources use slightly different definitions (e.g., counting “returns” or including stipulated removals differently), which affects headline percentages; MPI and ACLU framing varies in scope and emphasis [5] [2].
7. Bottom line for readers
If your question is “how often”: authoritative summaries of DHS data used by fact‑checkers and advocates show that during the Obama presidency roughly three‑quarters of formal removals were completed without a hearing before an immigration judge on average, with substantial year‑to‑year variation (roughly 58%–84% in individual years and an average near 74%) [1] [2]. Interpretations differ: civil‑liberties groups present this as a due‑process crisis [2] [6], while policy analysts emphasize enforcement strategy and changing migration flows as explanatory context [5] [3].