Introduction

Immigration policy has dominated recent presidential campaigns, and since January 2025, the Trump Administration has aggressively pursued its promise to arrest and remove as many noncitizens as possible.[1] Within six months, the Trump Administration has used immigration courts to lodge national security removal grounds against political activists, dramatically increased the use removal orders issued by immigration officials instead of judges, and invoked wartime powers to summarily expel noncitizens from the United States in its mass deportation campaign.

This article examines the traditional procedures used to remove noncitizens under the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), highlights key procedural and substantive distinctions between criminal and civil removal proceedings, explores lesser-known summary removal mechanisms, and reviews how the Trump Administration has asserted wartime powers to detain and deport noncitizens.

Judicial Removal Proceedings

Of all the mechanisms available to the government for removing a noncitizen from the United States, a removal hearing before an immigration judge offers the noncitizen the greatest chance of a full and fair hearing. The proceedings are governed by Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act and carried out by the Executive Office of Immigration Review (“EOIR”). The noncitizen may appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals,[2] and can raise legal and constitutional claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals by petition for review.[3]

Noncitizen respondents can hire a lawyer to represent them, and review or present evidence.[4] While these legal rights exceed those afforded noncitizens who are deported through non-judicial removal proceedings, they are far fewer than those given criminal defendants. Judicial removal hearings are typically reserved for noncitizens found in the interior of the United States who have not been previously removed.[5]

Immigration court operation has been directly affected by the Trump Administration’s mass removal effort and its immigration policy generally.[6] The Trump Administration has shown its willingness to charge noncitizen political activists with foreign policy grounds of removal. The well publicized arrest and detention of Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Kahlil and Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk are stark examples of this new trend.[7] This aggressive approach threatens the first amendment rights of noncitizens and exposes them to the prospect of removal proceedings under the guise of national interests, even outside the context of wartime powers.[8]

Compounding these concerns, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) has begun to systematically arrest noncitizens with ongoing court proceedings in order to subject them to nonjudicial removal hearings.[9] While ICE was previously barred from making arrests at places like courthouses, schools and churches, the agency is now encouraged to do so.[10] Further, immigration judges are encouraged by EOIR leadership on how to facilitate the arrests by terminating cases that the government moves to dismiss.[11]  

Noncitizen have minimal rights in immigration proceedings, as compared to the rights afforded criminal defendants, because “deportation is a purely civil action to determine if a person is eligible to remain in the country as opposed to criminal action,” and as a result “… various protections that apply in the context of a criminal trial do not apply in a deportation hearing.”[12] For example, anything is admissible as evidence in immigration court so long as the judge deems it probative and fundamentally fair to admit—the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply.[13]  

One of the most consequential differences between criminal and civil immigration court is the lack of free, appointed counsel for indigent noncitizen respondents fighting removal. While a noncitizen has the right to hire an attorney at their own expense, only 30 percent of noncitizens, including children, the elderly, and detained individuals, have legal representation.[14] A lack of individual resources, free private services, conditions of detention and a decreasing number of removal defense lawyers are common barriers to securing counsel.

Thousands of noncitizens are required to represent themselves in what courts have consistently acknowledged as an exceptionally complex area of law.[15] Astonishingly, in the course of litigation seeking appointed counsel for children, a senior immigration judge claimed that he could teach children as young as three immigration law sufficiently so they could represent themselves.[16] In response, immigration attorneys recorded mock hearings with toddlers and released them to the media.[17]

It was not until 2011 that noncitizens were entitled to a mental competency hearing to determine whether they could represent themselves, and under what conditions.[18] However, there was no clear authority or procedure for an immigration judge to appoint counsel, leaving judges the option of terminating proceedings or proceeding. In 2013, a federal lawsuit led to a national EOIR policy to provide free counsel to incompetent noncitizens in detention.[19]

In the case of Mahmoud Kahlil, the removal proceedings were brought in immigration court, enabling him to vigorously defend himself with the help of legal counsel—a stark contrast to the experience of the noncitizens arrested under the Alien Enemies Act discussed later in this article.

Summary Removal Mechanisms

In recent years, summary procedures have eclipsed traditional immigration court proceedings, accounting for the dramatic increase in removals overall.[20] For many years, most deportation statistics are driven by cases outside the immigration court framework—cases where immigration officials act as judge and jury, and legal counsel is not permitted.

Expedited Removal

To accelerate deportations, the administration has expanded the use of a non-judicial, fast track removal process that culminates with an Expedited Removal order.[21] This process, first enacted in 1997, allows immigration officers—not judges—to summarily deport individuals who lack valid entry documents and are not U.S. citizens at the border. There is no right to counsel or appeal. Although expedited removal has broad scope, for over two decades the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) limited its use to individuals encountered at ports of entry or within 100 miles of the border, and only if they had been in the U.S. for fewer than 14 days since 2004.[22]  

In his first Administration, the Trump Administration tried to radically shift past practice and apply Expedited Removal to noncitizens found anywhere in the U.S. who could not prove presence in the country for the last two years.[23] The rule was blocked by litigation for failure to implement the expansion through a notice and comment process and never went into effect.[24]

In his second Administration, President Trump issued an Executive Order directing the expansion of Expedited Removal as he had in his first term, but this time with a Federal Register notice.[25] Although the policy is being challenged in court, currently, DHS can apply Expedited Removal to anyone who has been in the U.S. for less than two years and cannot present evidence of lawful entry documents.[26] Idaho immigration attorneys understand that although the Idaho ICE staff resources are severely limited given the geographic responsibility, the office is not exempt from national orders to apply expedited removal within the state.

Rapid Administrative and Reinstatement of Removal Proceedings

Both Administrative Removal and Reinstatement of Removal are expedited procedures under the INA that allow immigration officers—rather than judges—to swiftly enforce removal orders against noncitizens.[27] In the case of Administrative Removal, non–lawful permanent residents who have a conviction classified as an “aggravated felony” may be subject to an order issued and enforced within as little as 14 days.[28] The complexity of what constitutes an “aggravated felony” by non-lawyers leads to legal errors, but the tight timelines make it difficult for individuals to obtain representation and mount a defense.[29]

Similarly, under Reinstatement of Removal, noncitizens who re-enter the U.S. after a previous removal can have their prior order reinstated, with enforcement possible just 10 days after issuance.[30] While both processes move quickly and do not guarantee a hearing before a judge, individuals retain the right to retain private counsel if they wish and may challenge the proceedings in federal court—though the window for such challenges is extremely limited. These streamlined mechanisms, while efficient, raise significant concerns about due process protections, given the high stakes and limited judicial oversight involved.

A Wartime Power Revived

The Alien Enemies Act

On March 15, 2025, the Trump Administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act (“AEA”) to remove alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (“TdA”), marking the first use of this law in modern history outside of wartime.[31] The AEA, created in 1798 as part of the Alien and Sedition Acts, authorizes the president to detain or expel nationals of countries considered hostile or threatening.[32] Previously, it was only used during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II for nationals of enemy countries.

The 2025 proclamation targets Venezuelan nationals aged 14 or older suspected of TdA ties. Approximately 250 individuals were summarily removed, sent directly from detention centers or public spaces to El Salvador’s mega-prison: the Center for Terrorism Confinement (“Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo” or “CECOT”), a facility criticized for human rights violations.[33] Detainees are denied access to family, legal counsel, and due process.[34] As the identities of those detained became known, their families and attorneys publicly protested, insisting that their loved ones had no connection to gangs and had been wrongfully targeted.

For example, Jerce Reyes Barrios, a 36-year-old former professional soccer player from Venezuela, sought asylum in the United States after being tortured by government officials in his home country.[35] He was flagged as a gang member for two reasons: a tattoo of a crown with a rosary over a soccer ball—an image that actually resembles the Real Madrid soccer logo—and a social media post in which he made a gesture that is widely recognized as either “I love you” in sign language or a rock and roll symbol.[36]

To identify alleged members of the Tren de Aragua, DHS used an “Alien Enemy Validation Guide.” The tool was reported to be deeply flawed by giving undue weight to tattoos as indicative of gang affiliation—even though experts later testified that TdA does not use tattoos as identifiers.[37]

The family and attorney of Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, a 31-year-old makeup artist, who was sent to El Salvador with Mr. Barrios, asserted that Andry had no criminal record in the U.S. or Venezuela and no ties to gangs.[38]

Probably the most well-known case of a mistaken arrest is that of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia. Despite being a national of El Salvador—not Venezuela—and having no ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, Abrego Garcia was summarily deported to El Salvador on the very day the AEA proclamation was issued.[39] This deportation violated a standing judge’s order specifically protecting him from removal to El Salvador due to the risk of persecution or torture upon return.[40]

Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia’s ordeal stands as a stark example of the dangers posed by the Trump Administration’s sweeping invocation of the AEA. Although the government admitted Abrego Garcia’s removal was in error, they took no steps to correct the mistake for an “Administrative error,” yet took no steps to correct the mistake for months. Only after Abrego Garcia’s attorneys filed suit did the courts intervene and order the government to return him to the United States—an order that was delayed and met with resistance at every turn. The case drew intense media scrutiny and public outcry, highlighting how carelessly and broadly the AEA was implemented. The case is a sobering reminder of the profound human cost when government power is exercised without caution, precision, or accountability.

Conclusion

Recent changes in U.S. immigration law have broadened removal powers and diminished due process protections, often to the detriment of individuals and families affected as well as the rule of law. Practices such as arresting noncitizens at courthouses undermine trust in the legal system and discourage those seeking to comply with the law from engaging with it.

The use of summary removal procedures—requiring complex legal analysis yet lacking the oversight of attorneys or judges—raises serious constitutional and due process concerns, as these actions infringe upon the already limited rights available to noncitizens. By granting sweeping authority for detention and removal without judicial oversight, the executive’s use of the AEA during peacetime raises serious constitutional concerns.  

Although removal is technically a civil issue, losing one’s home and community can be devastating – and, as the U.S. Supreme Court stated years ago, can mean the loss of “all that makes life worth living.“[41] Our collective vigilance is needed to ensure that the principles of justice, fairness, and human dignity remain at the forefront of immigration policy, even as laws and procedures continue to evolve.

Maria E. Andrade has practiced immigration law for 25 years, primarily through her private firm, Andrade Legal in Boise, Idaho. She focuses on complex immigration matters, federal litigation, and employer compliance. Maria also serves as Counsel to Salazar Legal, providing training and business consulting.

Ms. Andrade has held multiple leadership rules with the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Immigration Project for the National Lawyers Guild. She currently serves on the Advisory Committee of the Immigration Section of the Federal Bar Association. 

[1] See Guttentag, Immigration Policy Tracking Project (Tracking Trump 1.0 and 2.0 Administration Immigration Policies) available at https://immpolicytracking.org (last visited 07/01/25). Before the April of 199The term “removal” rather than “deportation” is used throughout this article.

Before the the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) of 1996, “deportation” was used rather than “removal” when physically taking or ordering a noncitizen to leave the United States. Under the IIRIRA, the term “order of deportation” was replaced with “order of removal” in most parts of the U.S. Code. The same Act consolidated former exclusion and deportation proceedings into a single “removal” process. See De la Rosa v. U.S. Attorney General , 579 F.3d 1327, 1328 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3272 (2010).

[2] 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38.

[3] INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

[4] INA § 240(b)(4), INA §240(c)(5), 8 U.S.C. §122a(c)(5); 8 CFR 1003.3(a)(1)(right to appeal)

[5]  These hearings are generally reserved for noncitizens found in the interior of the United States who have not been previously remove. In some cases, a person with LPR status will be referred to immigration court when returning from a trip abroad when a border official believes the person triggered a ground of removal before the return trip. See Matter of Pena, 26 I & N Dec. 613 (BIA 2015). (discussing when a returning LPR can be regarded as an applicant for admission).

[6] Unlike federal judges who are appointed for life under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Attorney General appoints immigration judges and is subject to Department of Justice policy and oversight.  The government attorney prosecuting is also a DOJ employee. See DOJ Organization Chart, available at https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart/map (last visited 07/02/25).

[7] Human Rights Watch U.S. News Release End Campaign of Draconian Campus Arrests: Trump Administration Using Dubious Immigration Enforcement to Chill Palestine Advocacy (April 3, 2025) available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/03/us-end-campaign-draconian-campus-arrests.

[8] See, Knight First Amendment Inst. Press Statement: DHS Dossiers on Ozturk, Khalil, Other Students Focused on Their Pro-Palestinian Speech, ICE Official Testifies, AAUP v. Rubio Day 4 Trial Update (July 10, 2025) available at https://knightcolumbia.org/content/dhs-dossiers-on-ozturk-khalil-other-students-focused-on-their-pro-palestinian-speech-ice-official-testifies. 

[9] In May 2025, attorneys in Idaho, Oregon and Washington reported cases where DHS attorneys moved to dismiss matters for clients pursuing lawful benefits, only for ICE to arrest them upon leaving the court. 

[10] See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website: Protected Areas and Courthouse Arrests at   https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero/protected-areas.

[11] See AILA Practice Alert: EOIR Guidance to Immigration Judges on Dismissals and Other Adjudications, AILA Doc. No. 25061204 (06/12/2025).

[12] INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984); see Markowitz, Peter L., Straddling the Civil-Criminal Divide: A Bifurcated Approach to Understanding the Nature of Immigration Removal Proceedings 43 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 289 (2008) available at SRRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1015322.

[13] E.g., Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823 (9^th Cir. 2003)(discussing evidentiary standards for removal).

[14] TRAC Immigration: Too Few Immigration Attorneys: Average Representation Rates Fall from 65% to 30% Transactional Records Clearinghouse (Jan. 24, 2024) available at https://tracreports.org/reports/736/ (last visited 08/14/25); Vera Institute of Justice , Immigration Court Legal Representation Dashboard, available at https://www.vera.org/ending-mass-incarceration/reducing-incarceration/detention-of-immigrants/advancing-universal-representation-initiative/immigration-court-legal-representation-dashboard  (last visited 06/30/25).

[15] E.g. Usubakunov v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1229 (9th Cir. 202)(“For decades, we have described United States immigration law as a labyrinthine.”)

[16] JEFM v. Lynch, Case No. 2:14-cv-01026-TSZ (W.D. Wash.) Deposition of Honorable Jack H. Weil (10/16/2025) reposted by ACLU.org at: https://www.aclu.org/cases/jefm-v-lynch?document=jefm-v-lynch-deposition-honorable-jack-h-weil;  Macleod-Ball, Kristin, Judge Who Believes Toddlers Can Represent Themselves, Only Part of the Problem in the Battle over Representation for Kids, American Immigration Council Immigration Blog (March 9, 2016).

[17] Roy, Jessica A judge thinks 3-year-olds can defend themselves, so immigration lawyers tired it on their own kids, Los Angeles Times (March 12, 2016) available at  https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-toddler-lawyers-videos-snap-html-htmlstory.html (last visited 06/30/24).

[18] Matter of M-A-M, 25 I & N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011)

[19] A 2013 agreement settled a lawsuit claiming that the 1973 Rehabilitation Act required the government to appoint counsel See ACACIA Center for Justice site at https://acaciajustice.org/what-we-do/national-qualified-representative-program/ (last visited 06/30/24).

[20] In FY 2013, more than 70 percent of all people ICE deported were subject to summary removal procedures. American Immigration Council, Removal without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States, available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/removal_without_recourse.pdf.

23 INA § 235(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1225, 8 C.F.R. § 235.3. Rosenblum, M. and McCabe, K., Deportation and Discretion: Reviewing the Record and Options for Change, Migration Policy Institute(majority of removals occur through summary procedures, without judge or right to counsel;  over 70% of ICE removals in FY 2103 were through summary procedures) (2014). Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-and-discretion-reviewing-record-and-options-change (last visited 07/05/25).Deportation and Discretion: Reviewing the Record and Options for Change, Migration Policy Institute(majority of removals occur through summary procedures, without judge or right to counsel;  over 70% of ICE removals in FY 2103 were through summary procedures) (2014). Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-and-discretion-reviewing-record-and-options-change (last visited 07/05/25). 

[22] See Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 Fed. Reg. 48877, 48880 (Aug. 11, 2004); American Immigration Council Fact Sheet: Removal Without Recourse (04/18/2014) available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/removal-without-recourse-growth-summary-deportations-united-states/

[23] American Immigration Council Fact Sheet: Removal Without Recourse (04/18/2014) available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/removal-without-recourse-growth-summary-deportations-united-states/ ; Congressional Research Service, Expedited Removal of Aliens: A Legal Framework (10/08/19) available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45314/R45314.7.pdf

[24] Id.

[25] Exec. Order No. 1415, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025).

[26] Practice Advisory: Everything Expedited Removal, National Immigration Litigation Alliance (Feb. 7. 2025) available at https://immigrationlitigation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/25.02.28-ER-FINALx.pdf.

[27] INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C § 1228(b)(3).

[28] INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C § 1228(b)(3). The INA has a distinct definition of “aggravated felony“ that may include state misdemeanors and non-violent conduct. See INA § 101(a)(48); 8 U.S.C. § ____(a)(48)(aggravated felony definition).

[29] Immigrant Defense Project, National Immigration Project Practice Advisory: Administrative Removal under 238(b):Questions and Answers (Feb. 16, 2017).

[30] INA § 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).

[31] See Proclamation No. 1903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (Mar. 14, 2025).

[32] See 50 U.S.C. § 21.

[33] Declaration of Juanita Goebertus, Director of Americas Division of Human Rights Watch regarding prison conditions in El Salvador, (03/19/25) available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/20/human-rights-watch-declaration-prison-conditions-el-salvador-jgg-v-trump-case (last visited 07/05/25); Amnesty International,  The human cost of the repressive cooperation between the US and El Salvador, (04/15/2025) available at:  https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/la-cooperacion-represiva-entre-eeuu-y-el-salvador/

[34] Id.

[35] Id. Rashid, H, A Tattoo of a Soccer Ball is Enough to Get You Deported to El Salvador, The New Republic (March 20, 2025).Doc. 67-21 at 429.

[36] E.g. Music, M. ICE Deported Professional Soccer Player after” I love you” Sign Language Symbol was Interpreted as Gange sign: Affidavit – The asylum seeker entered the US legally after he was tortured for protesting Venezuela’s authoritarian regime, The Latin Times (March 26, 2025) available at https://www.latintimes.com/ice-deported-professional-soccer-player-after-i-love-you-sign-language-symbol-was-interpreted-578912.

[37] Declaration of Rebecca Hanson, Case 1:25-CV-00766-JEB, Doc. 67-3, at 2-8; Id. Phillips, T. and Rangel, C., Deported because of his tattoos: has the US targeted Venezuelans for their body art?;  Doc. 67-21 at 134-140; Intelligence Assessment said to contradict Trump- on Venezuelan Gang; Case 1:25-CV-00766-JEB , Doc. 67-21 at 141- 148.

[38] A. Blitzer, John, The Makeup Artist Donald Trump Deported under the Alien Enemies Act, The New Yorker (March 31, 2025). 

[39] See Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse Case report Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:235-cv-00951 U.S. Dist. Court for the District of Maryland (filed March 24, 2025) at  https://clearinghouse.net/case/46283/ containing an ongoing case timeline and court documents.  where the court documents are reproduced and a detailed timeline of event.

[40] One of the ways a noncitizen who is subject to removal, can avoid actually being physically removed is winning a grant of “withholding of removal” from the immigration judge. INA § 241(b)(3)(B), 8 CFR §208.16. Under U.S. immigration law and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) An immigration judge can grant this protection from removal if the applicant shows that there is a 51% chance they will be persecuted if sent to the country of removal. This form of relief is typically requested by someone who is not eligible for asylum. For overview of difference between forms of protection see “I’m afraid to go back: A Guide to Asylum, Withholding of Removal and the Convention Against Torture, (2022) available at: https://portal.ice.gov/pdf/LOPPdf/AsylumWORCATGuide/Asylum_WOR_CAT-Guide-2022_ENGLISH_508_compliant.pdf 

[41] Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945), citing Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922).

Maria E. Andrade has practiced immigration law for 25 years, primarily through her private firm, Andrade Legal in Boise, Idaho. She focuses on complex immigration matters, federal litigation, and employer compliance. Maria also serves as Counsel to Salazar Legal, providing training and business consulting. Ms. Andrade has held multiple leadership rules with the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the National Immigration Project for the National Lawyers Guild. She currently serves on the Advisory Committee of the Immigration Section of the Federal Bar Association. 

[i] See Guttentag, Immigration Policy Tracking Project (Tracking Trump 1.0 and 2.0 Administration Immigration Policies) available at https://immpolicytracking.org (last visited 07/01/25). Before the April of 199The term “removal” rather than “deportation” is used throughout this article.

Before the the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (“IIRIRA”) of 1996, “deportation” was used rather than “removal” when physically taking or ordering a noncitizen to leave the United States. Under the IIRIRA, the term “order of deportation” was replaced with “order of removal” in most parts of the U.S. Code. The same Act consolidated former exclusion and deportation proceedings into a single “removal” process. See De la Rosa v. U.S. Attorney General , 579 F.3d 1327, 1328 n.2 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 3272 (2010).

[ii] 8 C.F.R. § 1003.38.

[iii] INA § 242, 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

[iv] INA § 240(b)(4), INA §240(c)(5), 8 U.S.C. §122a(c)(5); 8 CFR 1003.3(a)(1)(right to appeal)

[v]  These hearings are generally reserved for noncitizens found in the interior of the United States who have not been previously remove. In some cases, a person with LPR status will be referred to immigration court when returning from a trip abroad when a border official believes the person triggered a ground of removal before the return trip. See Matter of Pena, 26 I & N Dec. 613 (BIA 2015). (discussing when a returning LPR can be regarded as an applicant for admission).

[vi] Unlike federal judges who are appointed for life under Article III of the U.S. Constitution, the Attorney General appoints immigration judges and is subject to Department of Justice policy and oversight.  The government attorney prosecuting is also a DOJ employee. See DOJ Organization Chart, available at https://www.justice.gov/agencies/chart/map (last visited 07/02/25).

[vii] Human Rights Watch U.S. News Release End Campaign of Draconian Campus Arrests: Trump Administration Using Dubious Immigration Enforcement to Chill Palestine Advocacy (April 3, 2025) available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/04/03/us-end-campaign-draconian-campus-arrests.

[viii] See, Knight First Amendment Inst. Press Statement: DHS Dossiers on Ozturk, Khalil, Other Students Focused on Their Pro-Palestinian Speech, ICE Official Testifies, AAUP v. Rubio Day 4 Trial Update (July 10, 2025) available at https://knightcolumbia.org/content/dhs-dossiers-on-ozturk-khalil-other-students-focused-on-their-pro-palestinian-speech-ice-official-testifies. 

[ix] In May 2025, attorneys in Idaho, Oregon and Washington reported cases where DHS attorneys moved to dismiss matters for clients pursuing lawful benefits, only for ICE to arrest them upon leaving the court. 

[x] See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website: Protected Areas and Courthouse Arrests at   https://www.ice.gov/about-ice/ero/protected-areas.

[xi] See AILA Practice Alert: EOIR Guidance to Immigration Judges on Dismissals and Other Adjudications, AILA Doc. No. 25061204 (06/12/2025).

[xii] INS v. Lopez-Mendoza,468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984); see Markowitz, Peter L., Straddling the Civil-Criminal Divide: A Bifurcated Approach to Understanding the Nature of Immigration Removal Proceedings 43 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 289 (2008) available at SRRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1015322.

[xiii] E.g., Rojas-Garcia v. Ashcroft, 339 F.3d 814, 823 (9^th Cir. 2003)(discussing evidentiary standards for removal).

[xiv] TRAC Immigration: Too Few Immigration Attorneys: Average Representation Rates Fall from 65% to 30% Transactional Records Clearinghouse (Jan. 24, 2024) available at https://tracreports.org/reports/736/ (last visited 08/14/25); Vera Institute of Justice , Immigration Court Legal Representation Dashboard, available at https://www.vera.org/ending-mass-incarceration/reducing-incarceration/detention-of-immigrants/advancing-universal-representation-initiative/immigration-court-legal-representation-dashboard  (last visited 06/30/25).

[xv] E.g. Usubakunov v. Garland, 16 F.4th 1229 (9th Cir. 202)(“For decades, we have described United States immigration law as a labyrinthine.”)

[xvi] JEFM v. Lynch, Case No. 2:14-cv-01026-TSZ (W.D. Wash.) Deposition of Honorable Jack H. Weil (10/16/2025) reposted by ACLU.org at: https://www.aclu.org/cases/jefm-v-lynch?document=jefm-v-lynch-deposition-honorable-jack-h-weil;  Macleod-Ball, Kristin, Judge Who Believes Toddlers Can Represent Themselves, Only Part of the Problem in the Battle over Representation for Kids, American Immigration Council Immigration Blog (March 9, 2016).

[xvii] Roy, Jessica A judge thinks 3-year-olds can defend themselves, so immigration lawyers tired it on their own kids, Los Angeles Times (March 12, 2016) available at  https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-immigration-toddler-lawyers-videos-snap-html-htmlstory.html (last visited 06/30/24).

[xviii] Matter of M-A-M, 25 I & N Dec. 474 (BIA 2011)

[xix] A 2013 agreement settled a lawsuit claiming that the 1973 Rehabilitation Act required the government to appoint counsel See ACACIA Center for Justice site at https://acaciajustice.org/what-we-do/national-qualified-representative-program/ (last visited 06/30/24).

[xx] See Kahlil v. Trump, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01935-JMF, Am. Compl. Doc. 38 (Mar. 13, 2025), at 8. The facts recited here are drawn from the Complaint unless stated.

[xxi] President Trump referred to Kahlil as a “Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student” in a social media post, while Border Czar Thomas Homan labeled him a “national security threat.”
See DHS X Post (Mar. 9, 2025), available at: https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1898908955675357314; Wilson, Rothfeld & Ley, How a Columbia Student Activist Landed in Federal Detention, N.Y. Times (Mar. 16, 2025).

[xxii] See INA § 237(a)(4)(C)(i); 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(4)(C)(i) states that a noncitizen “whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.”

[xxiii] See Arulanantham, A. and Cox, A., Explainer on First Amendment and Due Process Issues in  Deportation of Pro-Palestinian Student Activist(s), Just Security (March 12, 2005) available at: https://www.justsecurity.org/109012/legal-issues-deportation-palestinian-student-activists/  Some marginalized groups with a history of navigating their free speech rights without the protection of citizenship are actively updating resources for others. See Valentin, M. & Jamal, D. The Fine Print: How Free is My Free Speech? Understanding the Intersection of Speech and Immigration Status Under the 2nd Trump Administration and Executive Summary, Muslim Legal Fund of America (April 28, 2025) available at https://mlfa.org/how-free-is-my-free-speech-understanding-the-intersection-of-freedom-of-speech-and-immigration-status-under-the-2nd-trump-administration/.

[xxiv] Id. citing Massieu v. Reno, 915 F. Supp. 681 (1996), and Massieu v. Reno, 91 F.3d 416 (1996).

[xxv] Author conversation with lead counsel, Marc VanDerHout (June 20, 2025).

[xxvi] Id.; Convention Against Torture, G.A. Res. 39/46, Annex, U.N. Doc. A/39/51; 8 C.F.R. § 208.16.; Even if Kahlil is removable as charged, if he can show a 51% chance of that he will be persecuted or tortured in his home country, the judge must issue an order preventing his removal. 

[xxvii] In FY 2013, more than 70 percent of all people ICE deported were subject to summary removal procedures. American Immigration Council, Removal without Recourse: The Growth of Summary Deportations from the United States, available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/removal_without_recourse.pdf.

23 INA § 235(b), 8 U.S.C. § 1225, 8 C.F.R. § 235.3 . Rosenblum, M. and McCabe, K., Deportation and Discretion: Reviewing the Record and Options for Change, Migration Policy Institute(majority of removals occur through summary procedures, without judge or right to counsel;  over 70% of ICE removals in FY 2103 were through summary procedures) (2014). Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-and-discretion-reviewing-record-and-options-change (last visited 07/05/25).Deportation and Discretion: Reviewing the Record and Options for Change, Migration Policy Institute(majority of removals occur through summary procedures, without judge or right to counsel;  over 70% of ICE removals in FY 2103 were through summary procedures) (2014). Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/deportation-and-discretion-reviewing-record-and-options-change (last visited 07/05/25). 

[xxix] See Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal, 69 Fed. Reg. 48877, 48880 (Aug. 11, 2004); American Immigration Council Fact Sheet: Removal Without Recourse (04/18/2014) available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/removal-without-recourse-growth-summary-deportations-united-states/

[xxx] American Immigration Council Fact Sheet: Removal Without Recourse (04/18/2014) available at https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/removal-without-recourse-growth-summary-deportations-united-states/ ; Congressional Research Service, Expedited Removal of Aliens: A Legal Framework (10/08/19) available at: https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/PDF/R45314/R45314.7.pdf

[xxxi] Id.

[xxxii] Exec. Order No. 1415, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025).

[xxxiii] Practice Advisory: Everything Expedited Removal, National Immigration Litigation Alliance (Feb. 7. 2025) available at https://immigrationlitigation.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/25.02.28-ER-FINALx.pdf.

[xxxiv] See Altman, Heidi, How the Biden Administration’s Expanded Asylum Ban Puts Lives at Risk and Contradicts American Values, NILC Policy Brief (Sept. 30, 2024).

[xxxv] INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C § 1228(b)(3).

[xxxvi] INA § 238(b)(3), 8 U.S.C § 1228(b)(3). The INA has a distinct definition of “aggravated felony“ that may include state misdemeanors and non-violent conduct. See INA § 101(a)(48); 8 U.S.C. § ____(a)(48)(aggravated felony definition).

[xxxvii] Immigrant Defense Project, National Immigration Project Practice Advisory: Administrative Removal under 238(b):Questions and Answers (Feb. 16, 2017).

[xxxviii] INA § 241(a)(5), 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(5).

[xxxix] See Proclamation No. 1903, 90 Fed. Reg. 13033 (Mar. 14, 2025).

[xl] See 50 U.S.C. § 21.

[xli] Declaration of Juanita Goebertus, Director of Americas Division of Human Rights Watch regarding prison conditions in El Salvador, (03/19/25) available at https://www.hrw.org/news/2025/03/20/human-rights-watch-declaration-prison-conditions-el-salvador-jgg-v-trump-case (last visited 07/05/25); Amnesty International,  The human cost of the repressive cooperation between the US and El Salvador, (04/15/2025) available at:  https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/04/la-cooperacion-represiva-entre-eeuu-y-el-salvador/

[xlii] Id.

[xliii] Id. Rashid, H, A Tattoo of a Soccer Ball is Enough to Get You Deported to El Salvador, The New Republic (March 20, 2025).Doc. 67-21 at 429.

[xliv] E.g. Music, M. ICE Deported Professional Soccer Player after” I love you” Sign Language Symbol was Interpreted as Gange sign: Affidavit – The asylum seeker entered the US legally after he was tortured for protesting Venezuela’s authoritarian regime, The Latin Times (March 26, 2025) available at https://www.latintimes.com/ice-deported-professional-soccer-player-after-i-love-you-sign-language-symbol-was-interpreted-578912.

[xlv] Declaration of Rebecca Hanson, Case 1:25-CV-00766-JEB, Doc. 67-3, at 2-8; Id. Phillips, T. and Rangel, C., Deported because of his tattoos: has the US targeted Venezuelans for their body art?;  Doc. 67-21 at 134-140; Intelligence Assessment said to contradict Trump- on Venezuelan Gang; Case 1:25-CV-00766-JEB , Doc. 67-21 at 141- 148.

[xlvi] A. Blitzer, John, The Makeup Artist Donald Trump Deported under the Alien Enemies Act, The New Yorker (March 31, 2025). 

[xlvii] See Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse Case report Abrego Garcia v. Noem, 8:235-cv-00951 U.S. Dist. Court for the District of Maryland (filed March 24, 2025) at  https://clearinghouse.net/case/46283/ containing an ongoing case timeline and court documents.  where the court documents are reproduced and a detailed timeline of event.

[xlviii] One of the ways a noncitizen who is subject to removal, can avoid actually being physically removed is winning a grant of “withholding of removal” from the immigration judge. INA § 241(b)(3)(B), 8 CFR §208.16. Under U.S. immigration law and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) An immigration judge can grant this protection from removal if the applicant shows that there is a 51% chance they will be persecuted if sent to the country of removal. This form of relief is typically requested by someone who is not eligible for asylum. For overview of difference between forms of protection see “I’m afraid to go back: A Guide to Asylum, Withholding of Removal and the Convention Against Torture, (2022) available at: https://portal.ice.gov/pdf/LOPPdf/AsylumWORCATGuide/Asylum_WOR_CAT-Guide-2022_ENGLISH_508_compliant.pdf 

[xlix] Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135 (1945), citing Ng Fung Ho v. White, 259 U.S. 276 (1922).