The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has blocked key components of a controversial immigration appeals rule aimed at limiting judicial review for noncitizens.
Washington, D.C. — A significant legal development occurred late last night when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order in the case of Amica Center for Immigrant Rights et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review et al. The court’s ruling effectively blocks critical elements of a new policy introduced by the Trump administration that sought to eliminate meaningful appellate review before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
The plaintiffs in this case include the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, Brooklyn Defender Services, the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, HIAS, and the National Immigrant Justice Center. The plaintiffs are represented by Democracy Forward, the American Immigration Council, and the National Immigrant Justice Center.
This lawsuit challenges the Interim Final Rule (IFR) titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” which was set to take effect on March 9, 2026. The IFR proposed sweeping changes that would have significantly undermined the rights of noncitizens to appeal decisions in their immigration cases. Key provisions of the rule that have now been blocked include:
— Reducing the time frame for filing most appeals from 30 days to just 10 days.
— Requiring summary dismissal of appeals unless a majority of permanent BIA members voted within 10 days to accept the case for review.
— Allowing dismissal decisions to occur before transcripts are created or records are transmitted.
Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, commented on the ruling, stating, “At a time when the due process rights of immigrants are under attack, this ruling prevents the BIA from reaching the point of near self-destruction. We hope that this decision is the first step of many in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes.”
Lucas Marquez, Director of Civil Rights & Law Reform at Brooklyn Defender Services, emphasized the importance of the ruling, saying, “Today’s ruling preserves a vital avenue for judicial review in removal proceedings and reminds government agencies to follow proper procedures when attempting to make sweeping changes to regulations.”
Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, added, “This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case. As the administration continues to try to deport as many people as they can quickly and often without a fair day in court, it is critical for everyone to have the opportunity to file an appeal. Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency.”
Stephen Brown, Director of Immigration Legal Services at HIAS, expressed gratitude for the court’s decision, stating, “Today, the court has again held the federal government to its foundational responsibility to afford basic fairness and due process to all whose rights it seeks to curtail.”
Mary Georgevich, Senior Litigation Attorney at the National Immigrant Justice Center, remarked on the broader implications of the ruling, saying, “Today’s ruling is an important win in the face of an administration that is intent on dismantling our immigration system at any cost, including betraying our country’s shared values of the importance of due process and access to counsel.”
Georgevich further noted, “While imperfect, the Board of Immigration Appeals is the body that Congress has mandated to review deportation orders when the immigration courts get it wrong. Allowing the Trump administration’s reckless proposal to block immigrants from a fair opportunity for review of bad decisions would have resulted in people being returned to danger and families unjustly separated, all to serve a racist mass deportation agenda.”
Erez Reuveni, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward, who presented the oral argument, stated, “Today’s decision makes it clear that the Trump-Vance administration cannot play games with the immigration appeals system to eliminate basic due process and fast-track deportations. Once again, no matter how hard this administration tries to hide its cruel and unlawful actions behind an ‘immigration policy,’ a federal court has made clear that the government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights.”
Suchita Mathur, Senior Litigation Attorney at the American Immigration Council, highlighted the significance of the court’s order, noting, “This order protects a critical safeguard in our immigration system: the ability to appeal a court decision. This rule would have led to the rushed deportations of untold people before their cases could even be properly reviewed. Today’s decision helps protect basic fairness in our immigration courts.”
The IFR was issued without the required notice-and-comment rulemaking period and fundamentally restructures appellate review in removal proceedings. By mandating summary dismissal unless the full Board acts within 10 days—before transcripts are created—the rule effectively makes meaningful review functionally impossible in most cases.
The legal team at Democracy Forward includes Erez Reuveni, Allyson Scher, Catherine Carroll, and Robin Thurston. Counsel at the American Immigration Council includes Michelle Lapointe and Suchi Mathur.
This ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing legal battles surrounding immigration policy and the rights of noncitizens in the United States, reinforcing the importance of due process and judicial review in immigration proceedings, according to American Immigration Council.