Federal courts are increasingly disregarding explicit congressional limits on their jurisdiction, challenging the executive branch’s ability to enforce immigration laws nationwide. Three decades after Congress stripped federal courts of review authority over expedited removal—a mechanism designed for swift deportation of undocumented immigrants who fail basic presence requirements—recent rulings signal a dangerous erosion of that legislative intent.
The foundation lies in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, which included provisions narrowing the scope of immigration cases eligible for judicial review while establishing expedited removal as an enforcement tool. This process was intended to avoid costly legal battles over unlawful entries unless specific statutory criteria applied. Notably, this means courts are prohibited from reviewing most non-adjustment-of-status claims.
However, judges in recent weeks have repeatedly ignored these restrictions. A district judge issued an injunction blocking the nationwide expansion of expedited removal that President Trump sought, a move Congress anticipated and barred. The subsequent refusal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to stay this lower ruling further exemplifies courts acting beyond their authorized capacity.
This judicial overreach represents more than just individual errors; it poses a fundamental challenge. It suggests courts may be defining their own authority, overriding Congress’s explicit limits on jurisdiction, and binding the executive even when cases are barred by statute—specifically, barring relief in actions challenging removal orders except under narrow circumstances already addressed by law.
The consequence is clear: “courts ignoring the law that authorizes expedited removal and ignoring the law that strips them of jurisdiction to review it.” Congress anticipated precisely this judicial usurpation decades ago. The power to define a federal court’s scope lies exclusively in statute, as affirmed in rulings like Patchak v. Zinke.
This ongoing legal conflict risks fundamentally altering how immigration is policed at the national level and challenges the very separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution regarding such authority.
