A federal judge in Washington has stopped a major attempt by the Trump administration to rapidly dispose of immigration appeals, ruling that the government pushed forward the plan without following required rule-making procedures.
The decision wipes out the central elements of a new policy crafted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), which oversees the immigration court system and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). The rule was designed to overhaul how appeals from immigration judges are handled, dramatically accelerating the timeline for challengers.
Under the proposal, individuals contesting an immigration judge’s decision would have had just 10 days to file a notice of appeal instead of the long-standing 30-day window. Any legal arguments not included in that initial filing would automatically be treated as abandoned. Appeals would then face swift dismissal unless the full Board of Immigration Appeals stepped in within the same 10-day period to accept the case.
The judge concluded that such sweeping changes could not be imposed without first allowing the public an opportunity to weigh in. The government had skipped the standard notice-and-comment process required under federal administrative law before implementing new regulations.
In the ruling, the court stressed that a policy affecting tens of thousands of individuals—particularly one shaping how immigration cases are argued and reviewed—must undergo proper scrutiny before it becomes binding.
The blocked provisions, the judge noted, would likely have resulted in the majority of appeals being rejected almost immediately. With the compressed deadlines and strict waiver rules, many cases might have been dismissed before a full review even began.
Several legal and social service organizations representing immigrants had challenged the rule, arguing it would severely undermine procedural fairness in immigration proceedings. They warned that the shortened timelines and strict technical requirements would make it extremely difficult for migrants to effectively challenge adverse decisions.
Supporters of the rule within the administration had framed it differently. Officials argued the changes were necessary to deal with a massive backlog at the Board of Immigration Appeals. By the end of the last fiscal year, more than 200,000 appeals were awaiting resolution—far higher than the roughly 37,000 pending a decade earlier.
The policy was promoted as part of broader efforts to accelerate deportation processes and reduce delays in the immigration system.
While the court struck down the core features of the rule, some smaller procedural provisions survived the challenge. Among them is a requirement that both sides in certain appeals submit their legal briefs simultaneously rather than sequentially.
For now, however, the ruling preserves the existing structure of immigration appeals, ensuring that migrants continue to receive the longer timeline to contest decisions made by immigration judges.
