Original Date Announced

Litigation filed by individual and organizational plaintiffs in the D.C. District Court alleges that "on or about May 20, 2025, DHS issued new guidance that takes the position that a person can be subjected to expedited removal proceedings at any time so long as DHS alleged inadmissibility, presumably via an NTA, within two years after a noncitizen arrives in the United States."

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) trial attorneys allegedly moved to dismiss removal proceedings against six of the individual plaintiffs in order to arrest them and process them for expedited removal notwithstanding the fact that they had already been present in the United States for more than two years at the time. Plaintiffs argue this policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is both contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. Immigration Advocates Response Collaborative v. Dep't of Justice, No. 1:25-cv-02279 (D.D.C.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Trump 2.0 [ID #1884]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.02 Habeas Petition and Complaint - Co Tupul v. Noem

Mirta Co Tupul filed a petition for habeas corpus and complaint to challenge her detention and expedited removal order. Co Tupul has lived continuously in the United States for nearly 30 years and is a single mother of three U.S.-citizen children. She alleges that her detention and expedited removal order violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well as the INA's requirement that expedited removal shall not be applied to noncitizens who have been physically present in the United States for more than two years. She also alleges that an ICE officer told her attorney that ICE has a “new policy” of ordering expedited removal for noncitizens upon “their first contact with ICE.” The complaint asks the court to vacate or enjoin the expedited removal order, release Co Tupul, and declare the application of expedited removal to her case unlawful. Co Tupul v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-02748 (D. Ariz.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.04 Temporary Restraining Order - Co Tupul v. Noem

U.S. District Judge Diane J. Humetewa granted a temporary restraining order in Co Tupul v. Noem, preventing the government from deporting Co Tupul while her request for a preliminary injunction is pending. The order states that "the evidence creates a serious question" whether she is eligible for expedited removal "given her decades long presence in the United States." Judge Humetewa found that Co Tupul has shown irreparable harm absent a stay, substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and a balance of hardships that "tips sharply" in her favor. Co Tupul v. Noem, No. 2:25-cv-02748 (D. Ariz.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**