Trump Bid to Toss Immigrant Appeals Blocked by Federal Judge (2)

A federal judge barred the Trump administration from implementing most of a new regulation that would overhaul how deportation appeals are reviewed, siding with immigration advocacy groups that argued the rule violates federal law.

Judge Randolph D Moss, a Barack Obama appointee on the US District Court for the District of Columbia, late Sunday vacated the main provisions of the rule, which would allow the Board of Immigration Appeals to summarily dismiss most challenges and shorten the window for filings. The changes had been scheduled to take effect Monday.

Moss found the administration failed to comply with public comment requirements in the Administrative Procedure Act.

“Issues that are so fundamental to the rights of tens of thousands of individuals (and that will guide how organizations and lawyers present their claims to the BIA) ought to be considered and addressed before—rather than after—a rule takes effect,” he wrote.

Moss heard arguments over the rule during a Friday court hearing.

The regulation, issued by the Justice Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review, would allow members of the Board of Immigration Appeals to dismiss appeals unless a majority voted to consider them. Immigrants’ rights organizations argued the measure would “systematically disadvantage” immigrants seeking relief and unlawfully curtail meaningful appellate review.

The ruling preserves the current appellate review framework at the Board of Immigration Appeals for now, slowing the administration’s effort to streamline case processing amid a ballooning immigration court backlog.

The planned changes that the court vacated include the summary dismissal of most appeals, the reduction of the deadline to file a notice of appeal from 30 days to 10 days, and a waiver provision requiring appellants to raise all issues in the notice of appeal or risk forfeiting them.

Moss left several other aspects of the regulation intact. Those include procedural changes such as simultaneous briefing schedules, limits on extensions and reply briefs, and other case-management adjustments, finding the plaintiffs hadn’t demonstrated those provisions would cause immediate irreparable harm.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs welcomed the ruling, saying it preserves an important safeguard in the immigration system.

“This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case,” Laura St. John, legal director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, said in a statement.

Justice Department officials had argued the changes were necessary to address a caseload that has grown more than fivefold over the past decade.

Representatives for the Executive Office of Immigration Review declined to comment on the ruling, citing the ongoing litigation.

The case is Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. EOIR, D.D.C., No. 1:26-cv-00696.