INTRODUCTION
On April 15, 2025, thousands of demonstrators took to the streets of major U.S. cities—including Washington, D.C.; Los Angeles; Chicago; and New York City—to protest the federal government’s recent expansion of mass deportation policies targeting undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers. What began as localized rallies in border states quickly escalated into a coordinated national movement under the banner “Families Belong Together,” demanding an immediate halt to large-scale removals, restoration of due process rights, and a review of executive actions seen as exceeding statutory authority. The protests, documented comprehensively on Wikipedia’s page “2025 United States protests against mass deportation,” underscore deep legal and societal tensions surrounding immigration enforcement, federalism, and constitutional protections (Wikipedia, 2025).
At stake is the balance between the federal government’s plenary power over immigration, enshrined in Article I of the Constitution, and individuals’ Fifth Amendment right to due process. Advocates argue that the Biden administration’s June 2024 Executive Order 24-03, which authorized expedited removal without individualized hearings for certain categories of undocumented entrants, runs afoul of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (INA) procedural safeguards and exceeds executive authority under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Opponents contend that Congress delegated broad discretion to the Executive Branch to enforce immigration laws as it deems necessary to protect national security and public welfare.
“When the government begins to treat human beings as mere statistics to be swept away, we betray the very ideals upon which this nation was founded,” declared Professor Laura Gómez of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, capturing the protests’ moral urgency. Her words frame the central thesis of this article: the 2025 protests epitomize a constitutional crisis in which executive overreach, congressional abdication, and grassroots activism converge, challenging the rule of law and the nation’s commitment to fundamental rights.
This article will analyze the legal and historical background of U.S. deportation authority, examine the current status of legal challenges against accelerated removal procedures, explore divergent political perspectives, compare analogous cases, and forecast the policy implications of this watershed moment in American immigration law.
LEGAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The United States’ authority to remove noncitizens stems primarily from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952 (8 U.S.C. §§ 1101–1537), which consolidated and codified prior statutes governing admission and removal. Section 1225 of the INA grants immigration officers the power to inspect arriving aliens and determine admissibility, while Section 1226 authorizes the arrest and detention of noncitizens pending removal proceedings. Crucially, Section 1226(a) requires that any alien subject to removal “be taken into custody” and afforded an individual hearing before an immigration judge, unless otherwise specified by statute.
Historically, Congress has embedded procedural safeguards in removal proceedings to ensure fairness. The Refugee Act of 1980 amended the INA to introduce asylum protections, while the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996 refined expedited removal provisions (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)). Under IIRIRA, certain noncitizens arriving without valid entry documents may be removed summarily within 14 days, but they remain entitled to express a fear of persecution and receive a “credible fear” interview.
In 2001, following the September 11 attacks, Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act, expanding expedited removal to any alien “who has not been admitted or paroled into the United States after entry” (8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(A)(i)–(ii)). Yet even this expansion preserved the right to limited administrative review and access to counsel.
More recently, the Biden administration’s Executive Order 24-03 (EO 24-03), issued on June 30, 2024, further broadened expedited removal to include noncitizens present anywhere in the U.S., not solely at ports of entry, if they lack “lawful status.” The EO directs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to complete removal within seven days absent “exceptional circumstances,” citing 5 U.S.C. § 553(b) of the APA to justify bypassing notice-and-comment rulemaking.
“Legal precedent clearly requires individualized determinations before depriving a person of liberty or property interests,” observes constitutional law scholar Professor Michael Selmi of Southwestern Law School, referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976), which established a balancing test for due process claims under the Fifth Amendment. By contrast, the government defends EO 24-03 as a permissible policy change under Chevron deference (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)), arguing that the INA’s broad removability provisions implicitly authorize rapid enforcement measures.
Internationally, the United States is bound by the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967 Protocol, incorporated into domestic law through the Refugee Act of 1980. Article 33 of the Convention prohibits “refoulement,” the forced return of refugees to territories where their lives or freedom would be threatened. Critics contend that EO 24-03’s accelerated removals risk violating non-refoulement obligations by truncating credible fear interviews and judicial review.
CASE STATUS AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
Several federal challenges soon followed EO 24-03. In Doe v. Biden, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on July 15, 2024, plaintiffs—comprising asylum seekers and immigrant advocacy groups—argued that the EO violates the INA, APA, and Fifth Amendment (Complaint, Doe v. Biden, No. 1:24-cv-01809 (D.D.C. July 2024)). The district court granted a preliminary injunction on September 10, 2024, finding plaintiffs likely to succeed on the merits of their APA claim because the administration failed to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.
Concurrently, ACLU v. DHS challenged the government’s reliance on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) to justify expanded removals beyond ports of entry. In its filing, the ACLU cited Section 1229a(b)(4) of the INA, which ensures the right to a hearing before an immigration judge. A three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments in December 2024; a decision is expected by June 2025.
On the legislative front, the House Judiciary Committee convened hearings on August 2, 2024, featuring testimony from ICE Director Tae Johnson and Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. Democratic members criticized the policy’s human cost and lack of Congressional authorization, whereas Republicans lauded its deterrent effect. Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) declared, “We cannot be a nation of laws if we ignore the very statutes that govern our conduct”, while Ranking Member Jim Jordan (R-OH) countered, “Enforcement without enforcement power is merely a suggestion” (Hearing Transcript, House Judiciary Committee, Aug. 2, 2024).
VIEWPOINTS AND COMMENTARY
Progressive / Liberal Perspectives
Civil rights organizations uniformly condemn EO 24-03 as an unconstitutional overreach that undermines due process and endangers vulnerable populations. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) contends that “removal without individualized hearings is a stark return to border militarization that ignores the humanity of those seeking refuge” (ACLU Statement, July 2024). Legal scholar Ingrid Eagly of the UCLA School of Law emphasizes that the policy effectively suspends fundamental Fifth Amendment protections:
“Due process is not a dispensable luxury; it is the cornerstone of justice. Stripping procedural safeguards from courts forces judges to rubber-stamp removals, increasing the risk of erroneous deportations,” she writes in the Stanford Law Review (Eagly, 2024).
Democratic lawmakers echo these concerns. Senator Alex Padilla (D-CA) argues that expedited removals “violate the moral and legal commitments of our nation” and pushes for legislation to codify asylum rights. Meanwhile, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights has filed an amicus brief warning that EO 24-03’s seven-day removal deadline makes meaningful legal representation impossible, particularly for non-English speakers and minors.
Humanitarian groups highlight the policy’s human toll. Doctors Without Borders reports that patients with legitimate fear of persecution are “effectively denied the time and medical support needed during the credible fear process,” leading to psychological trauma and, in some cases, forcible return to life-threatening environments.
Conservative / Right-Leaning Perspectives
Republican lawmakers and conservative think tanks defend EO 24-03 as a vital tool for restoring order and enforcing the rule of law. The Heritage Foundation’s James Jay Carafano asserts that “any sovereign nation has the right to control its borders swiftly and decisively,” and that the INA’s broad language implicitly grants the executive latitude to adapt enforcement to evolving threats (Carafano, Heritage Foundation Brief, Oct. 2024).
Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) praises the policy for deterring unlawful crossings, stating, “When cartels know that border-jumpers face near-immediate removal, smuggling enterprise loses its profitability.” National security experts at the Center for Immigration Studies argue that prolonged detention and drawn-out proceedings encourage “gaming of the system,” allowing criminals to exploit asylum loopholes.
Originalist legal scholars, such as Eugene Volokh of UCLA Law, maintain that the INA should be read according to textualist principles, granting “nearly unfettered discretion” to remove aliens (Volokh, University of Chicago Legal Forum, 2023). They view judicial challenges as “an invitation for the courts to supplant policy judgments firmly entrusted to the political branches” and caution against judicial activism.
COMPARABLE OR HISTORICAL CASES
Three historical precedents shed light on the current struggle:
- The Chinese Exclusion Cases (19th Century)
In Chae Chan Ping v. United States, 130 U.S. 581 (1889), the Supreme Court upheld Congress’s plenary power to exclude noncitizens without judicial review. While often cited to justify broad executive authority, modern critics note its context of racial animus and lack of constitutional safeguards.
“The ‘plenary power’ doctrine emerged in an era unconcerned with individual rights, and its uncritical application today risks repeating past injustices,” argues Professor Hiroshi Motomura (Motomura, Yale Law Journal, 2019). - The Carter and Reagan Amnesty Programs (1986 and 1987)
Following the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the government granted legalization to millions but also tightened interior enforcement. While not a removal-driven policy, these measures illustrate how Congress has historically paired amnesty with stricter enforcement, demonstrating bipartisan capacity for comprehensive reform. - Post-9/11 Expedited Removal Expansion
As noted, the USA PATRIOT Act extended expedited removal beyond ports of entry. In Gonzalez v. DHS, 508 F.3d 1227 (9th Cir. 2007), courts upheld the policy but stressed that the government must provide meaningful fear interviews. The tension between security and due process then echoes current debates.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS AND FORECASTING
In the short term, continued injunctions against EO 24-03 may force the administration to revert to prior removal practices, creating enforcement gaps and political blame games. Congress faces pressure to pass clarifying legislation—either to codify expanded removal powers or to strengthen procedural safeguards. Forthcoming bills include the “Due Process Restoration Act” (S. 1287) and the “Border Security and Enforcement Act” (H.R. 3679), each reflecting competing priorities.
Long-term, the protests may catalyze a reexamination of the plenary power doctrine. If courts narrow Chae Chan Ping and related precedents, immigrants could gain broader judicial protections. Conversely, a Supreme Court victory for the administration would entrench executive discretion, emboldening future presidents to circumvent legislative constraints.
The policy also raises international ramifications. The European Court of Human Rights has criticized summary expulsions in several member states, and U.S. actions under EO 24-03 risk straining diplomatic relations and undermining global refugee protections. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has expressed “grave concern” that streamlined removals violate non-refoulement obligations.
“This moment tests whether America remains a beacon for the persecuted or succumbs to the fear of disorder,” reflects Brookings Institution scholar Michael Fix in a recent policy brief. Meanwhile, Cato Institute analysts warn that overzealous enforcement may deter high-skilled immigration, harming economic growth.
CONCLUSION
The 2025 protests against mass deportation policies crystallize a profound constitutional and moral dilemma: balancing sovereign authority to enforce immigration laws against the inviolable rights of those seeking refuge. On one side stands the Executive Branch, asserting broad discretion under plenary power and Chevron deference; on the other, a coalition of civil rights advocates, legal scholars, and lawmakers demanding that due process and international obligations not be cast aside.
Although the outcome of pending litigation and legislative debates remains unclear, one thing is certain: the conflict over mass deportation policies has reignited fundamental questions about America’s identity as a nation of laws and a refuge for the vulnerable.
“Our legal system must neither be weaponized against the powerless nor rendered impotent by formalism—it must be the living embodiment of justice,” concludes Professor Michele Goodwin of UC Irvine School of Law.
As the nation watches, the next move—whether by Congress, the courts, or the executive—will define U.S. immigration policy and constitutional governance for decades to come. Will America reaffirm its commitment to due process and humanitarian law, or will it embrace an era of expedited removals? The answer will shape not only the lives of millions but the very character of the republic.
For Further Reading
- In First 100 Days, Trump 2.0 Has Dramatically Reshaped the U.S. Immigration System, but Is Not Meeting Mass Deportation Aims
- Protests against Executive Order 13769
- 2025 United States protests against mass deportation
- Trump administration moves quickly with mass deportation plans
- Protests Against Trump’s Immigration Polices Erupt Across the Country