About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (October 2, 2019)

handle is hein.crs/govbbfz0001 and id is 1 raw text is: A ongressional _______ SResearch Service I~nforming the leg sla tive debate since 1914 The Department of Homeland Security's Nationwide Expansion of Expedited Removal Updated October 2, 2019 Update: Following the initial publication of this Legal Sidebar, several immigration advocacy groups filed a lawsuit in the US. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) nationwide expansion of expedited removal. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the agency failed to comply with notice-and-comment procedures before announcing the expedited removal expansion, and the agency did not offer a reasoned explanation for its decision. The plaintiffs also argued that the expedited removal expansion violated the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause because it deprives individuals who have lived in the United States for lengthier periods of time an opportunity to contest their removal at a hearing. On September 27, 2019, the D. C. federal district court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction pending the outcome of the litigation. The court determined that it has jurisdiction to review the plaintiffs'challenge under § 242(e) (3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which authorizes the court to review whether a regulation or written policy to implement expedited removal is unconstitutional or in violation of law; and that INA § 235(b)(1), which grants DHS the sole and unreviewable discretion to designate categories of aliens subject to expedited removal, does not bar judicial review of the manner in which DHS makes an expedited removal designation. In reviewing the expedited removal expansion, the court concluded that DHS likely violated the APA by not complying with notice-and-comment procedures before announcing the expansion, and failing to consider the potential negative impacts of expanding expedited removal into the interior of the United States. The court did not address the plaintiffs 'constitutional challenge to the expedited removal expansion. Given the court's decision, DHS may not implement its nationwide expansion of expedited removal pending the outcome of the litigation. The original version of this Sidebar from July 26, 2019 is published below. Non-U.S. nationals (aliens) apprehended by immigration authorities when attempting to unlawfully enter the United States are generally subject to a streamlined, expedited removal process, in which there is no hearing or further review of an administrative determination that the alien should be removed. Since the enactment of the expedited removal statute in 1996, expedited removal has been used primarily with respect to aliens who have either arrived at a designated port of entry or were apprehended near the border shortly after surreptitiously entering the United States. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), however, authorizes the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to apply expedited Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB10336 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most