Case Explained: MAKE THE ROAD NEW YORK v. MARKWAYNE MULLIN, SECRETARY OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Filed: 2026-06-23 The D.C. Circuit vacated the district court’s nationwide stay of the Department of Homeland Security’s January 2025 expansion of expedited removal authority and the accompanying implementation guidance, holding that the challenged written directives do not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court applied the standard set forth in *Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co.*, which requires notice “reasonably calculated” to apprise interested parties of the action and afford them an opportunity to present objections, rather than the balancing test of *Mathews v. Eldridge*. The court concluded that the expedited removal process satisfies this standard because the statutes and regulations provide aliens with clear notice of the charges (inadmissibility due to lack of documentation or fraud) and a meaningful opportunity to respond by asserting defenses such as continuous physical presence for at least two years. The court rejected the argument that due process requires the government to affirmatively instruct individuals on available legal defenses or exemptions, noting that the directives themselves do not prohibit aliens from raising these claims. Furthermore, the court found that alleged implementation failures by individual officers, such as referral errors or insufficient time to consult counsel, did not render the written directives themselves unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3). As a practical consequence, the stay is lifted, allowing the Department of Homeland Security to immediately implement and enforce the nationwide expansion of expedited removal for aliens who cannot demonstrate two years of continuous physical presence. The court also affirmed that the district court had jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3) and authority to issue a stay under 5 U.S.C. § 705, rejecting the government’s argument that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1) barred such relief because a “stay” is not an order to “enjoin or restrain” conduct in the coercive sense prohibited by that statute. Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.