How have recent policy changes affected the number of deportations carried out without immigration-judge hearings?
Executive summary
Recent policy changes — principally an aggressive expansion of expedited removal and related tactics such as dismissal of pending cases and courthouse arrests — have substantially increased the government's ability to deport people without an immigration-judge hearing, with advocates and policy analysts saying fast-track removals now account for a very large share of deportations and that new practices have created a rapid pipeline that bypasses traditional court proceedings [1] [2] [3]. Courts and civil‑liberties groups have pushed back and won temporary blocks and limits in some jurisdictions, but litigation is ongoing and the administration has appealed several rulings, leaving the net effect uneven across the country [4] [2].
1. Expansion of expedited removal: a legal lever turned operational
The administration issued executive orders and a Federal Register notice expanding expedited removal to the maximum extent permitted under law, a change that allows DHS, CBP, and ICE to move many noncitizens into a fast-track process that can result in deportation without an immigration-judge hearing and, in some cases, in as little as a single day [5] [1]. Policy explanations and legal‑practice guides confirm that under the expanded rules officials are explicitly identifying people in the interior U.S. for expedited removal — including terminating parole statuses and ongoing proceedings to do so — thereby converting what had been a limited border tool into an instrument for mass interior removals [6] [1].
2. Tactics that accelerate removals: dismissals and courthouse arrests
DHS and its attorneys have instructed immigration judges to dismiss active cases and then immediately place the individuals into expedited removal, and they have used courthouse arrests to detain people at hearings — tactics that effectively cut off the immigration-judge forum and funnel people into administrative deportation channels [3] [2]. Migration Policy reports that such fast-track processes already accounted for more than half of removals in recent years, demonstrating that the mechanisms the administration is scaling up were already significant before the 2025–26 push to expand them further [2].
3. Quantitative signals and limits of the public record
Multiple advocacy and policy organizations document steep increases in detention capacity and removals associated with the new approach — for example, reporting that detainee populations rose sharply and that DHS planned to scale beds into 2026 — but the sources in this packet do not provide a single, authoritative national tally isolating the incremental number of deportations that occurred without hearings after each policy change, so precise net increases attributable solely to the 2025–26 expansions are not available here [7] [2]. Analysts do, however, tie the expanded expedited-removal use and policies eliminating certain hearings to a broader spike in removals and in the share of deportations handled administratively rather than through immigration courts [2] [1].
4. Legal pushback and judicial constraints alter but do not end the trend
Federal judges and civil-rights groups have blocked or restricted parts of the fast‑track strategy: the ACLU and others won rulings halting some fast‑track facilities and arguing the expansion raises grave due‑process problems, while other courts have limited dismissals or required individualized findings before judges accede to government requests — yet the Justice Department and administration have appealed several decisions, leaving policy implementation contested and geographically patchy [4] [2]. These rulings show the trend can be curtailed by litigation, but they have not wholesale reversed the expanded operational posture documented by immigration‑policy analysts [4] [2].
5. Stakes and open questions: due process, mistaken removals, and monitoring
Advocates warn that rapid administrative deportations will sweep up people with valid claims, lawful status, or U.S. ties and that fewer hearings mean fewer chances to present asylum or other defenses — a concern explicitly raised by national legal groups and fact sheets [1] [8]. At the same time, courts have allowed some enforcement practices to continue in parts of the country and DHS has moved quickly to expand capacity, so the policy shift has both immediate operational effects and uncertain long-term legal contours; available reporting documents the mechanism and its expansion but does not supply a definitive nationwide pre/post count isolating removals without hearings attributable solely to the recent policy changes [3] [7].