The Trump administration recently achieved a legal win in a case concerning the expedited deportation process for certain Somali immigrants. This case involved an attempt to challenge a policy that allegedly aimed to hasten these deportations through a select group of immigration judges.

On Friday, a federal court denied emergency relief sought by immigrant advocacy groups, which would have halted the newly introduced “Somali Fast-Track Policy.” This policy, unveiled in January, has been at the center of controversy.

The plaintiffs in the case argue that the policy unfairly targets Somali immigrants, including those not in detention. According to court filings, initial immigration hearings have been scheduled simultaneously, creating scheduling conflicts for attorneys and forcing them to make difficult choices about which hearings to attend.

In contrast, the government maintains that no such policy targeting Somali immigrants exists.

In a 27-page memorandum opinion, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by President Donald Trump, concluded that the advocacy groups challenging the policy likely do not have the legal standing to proceed. However, he acknowledged the validity of the allegations presented in the lawsuit.

“The unrebutted record does suggest some form of coordinated effort aimed solely at non-detained Somali aliens,” the opinion stated. “However, the primary impact of this effort is on the aliens themselves, who are not parties to this case and have their own legal avenues to contest removal decisions that infringe upon their constitutional or statutory rights. The organizations bringing this lawsuit claim different and less severe harms, which are not easily addressable by the court and do not appear to be irreparable.”

The plaintiffs, a law firm and immigration nonprofit group, allege various violations of the U.S. Constitution – the First Amendment as well as the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fifth Amendment – and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the federal statute governing the behavior of administrative agencies.

“[The policy] has accelerated in recent weeks, truncates the timeline for non-detained Somali immigrants across the country to consult with counsel and establish their claims and entitlement to relief from removal,” the lawsuit filed in late March reads. “It likewise makes the work of Plaintiffs—legal service providers seeking to assist Somali immigrants in that process—monumentally more difficult and, in many cases, nearly impossible.”

The 26-page complaint outlines the alleged policy as follows:

a. Sets master calendar hearings for non-detained Somali immigration cases in which such hearings were previously vacated and are otherwise unnecessary;

b. Sets and advances individual merits hearings for non-detained Somalis on short notice— for no later than Summer 2026, and in many cases mere weeks away—even in cases where such hearings were previously scheduled for 2027 or 2028, providing minimal time for counsel to prepare; and

c. Sets all or nearly all these master calendar hearings and individual merits hearings for non-detained Somalis before a subset of IJs who otherwise sit outside the relevant jurisdiction and in many cases have higher-than-average removal rates.

“The Somali Fast-Track Policy—which truncates the timeline for non-detained Somalis and their attorneys to effectively prepare their cases and will very likely result in the removal of Somali immigrants who are eligible for protection—irreparably harms Plaintiffs, legal service providers with a collective mission of working to ensure access to full and fair proceedings before the immigration courts for as many noncitizens as possible,” the lawsuit goes on.

In an associated 40-page motion for an emergency stay, the plaintiffs say the state of affairs has swiftly grown worse over time.

“Somali nationals’ final merits hearings—the last chance to make their case for humanitarian protection before the IJ [immigration judge]—have been rapidly advanced under the new Policy, leaving attorneys with mere days or weeks to assemble evidence and prepare arguments instead of the six months or more that is typical,” the request for emergency relief reads.

Stressing the allegedly dire and time-sensitive nature of the request, the plaintiffs insist these “newly expedited hearings” have been assigned to “a subset” of immigration judges with “higher-than-average removal rates” who are geographically removed from the immigrants in question.

The government, in turn, claims the plaintiffs are crying wolf.

“Plaintiffs claim there is a policy to expedite the removal of non-detained noncitizens of Somalia,” according to a 36-page opposition motion contesting the stay request. “However, there is no such policy. At bottom, Plaintiffs’ claims are nothing more than a collateral attack on immigration proceedings. And this Court lacks the authority to hear those claims.”

And, for now, at least, the court sided with the government.

“Plaintiffs are not entitled to a stay at this stage of the litigation and based on the present record,” the opinion reads.

To hear Nichols tell it, the policy is still too new and effectively lacking consequences from which “rights or obligations have been determined, or from which legal consequences will flow.”

“Plaintiffs contend that the alleged policy ‘robs immigration judges of [their] discretion by putting non-detained Somali cases on an accelerated timeline writ large,’” the opinion goes on. “But Plaintiffs have not shown that individual IJs have lost the capacity to manage their docket.”

The judge goes on to say the plaintiffs may have some points about the fast-tracking issue, but cautions that “a policy that merely tells immigration judges to do their jobs faster is only reviewable” if, again, the policy ultimately “itself determines rights or obligations or alters the legal regime governing those the agency is charged to regulate.”

Nichols adds that a policy where immigration judges are allowed to set their own schedules would likely be acceptable – but notes that the issue is too embryonic for a definitive determination at this point.

“All of this is of course complicated by the amorphousness of the challenged policy, the Government’s complete denial of its existence, and the posture of this motion, which requires the Court to determine what Plaintiffs are ‘likely’ able to establish,” the judge continues. “[T]he Court’s conclusion that the alleged policy is likely not reviewable final agency action is only tentative. As this litigation proceeds, more details about the existence and contours of this policy may emerge. But in the preliminary relief posture, uncertainty cuts against Plaintiffs.”