Expedited Removal Is Back Nationwide. Kentucky Jails May Help Carry It Out.

A federal appeals court allowed DHS to resume fast-track deportations, and Kentucky’s ICE detention network provides a local path for the ruling.

Jun 24, 2026

A federal appeals court allowed DHS to resume expanded expedited removal, a fast-track deportation process that can affect people detained far from the border, including people held in Kentucky jails.

The Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement are responsible for implementing the expanded expedited removal policy that a federal appeals court allowed to resume in June 2026. Wikimedia Commons

The ruling that changed the timeline

On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit allowed the Department of Homeland Security to resume expanded expedited removal nationwide.

The case is Make the Road New York v. Noem. The plaintiffs challenged a January 2025 DHS policy that restored expedited removal “to the fullest extent authorized by Congress.” U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb had blocked that expanded policy in August 2025. The D.C. Circuit reversed that stay in a 2-1 ruling.

The practical change is narrow in one sense and serious in another. The ruling does not create a new immigration statute. Congress created expedited removal in 1996. The change is that DHS may again use the process more broadly, including against certain people encountered inside the United States who cannot affirmatively show they have been continuously present for at least two years.

That matters in Kentucky because immigration enforcement is already connected to county jails, ICE detention contracts, and 287(g) agreements. When the federal government accelerates removal, local detention capacity can become part of the enforcement path.

What happened

DHS published its expanded expedited removal notice in the Federal Register on January 24, 2025. The notice said it rescinded the Biden administration’s 2022 limits and restored expedited removal to the full scope allowed under federal law. The designation took effect at 6 p.m. Eastern on January 21, 2025.

Acting DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman also issued implementation guidance in January 2025. That guidance directed ICE, CBP, and USCIS to review cases for possible expedited removal and addressed how officers should use enforcement discretion.

Make the Road New York and other plaintiffs sued. They argued that the expanded process could lead to the rapid deportation of people within the country without adequate procedural protections. In August 2025, Judge Cobb stayed the policy nationwide.

On June 23, 2026, the D.C. Circuit reversed that stay. Judge Justin Walker wrote the majority opinion, joined in large part by Judge Neomi Rao. Judge Robert Wilkins dissented. The ruling allows DHS to resume the expanded policy while the litigation continues.

The fast-track process DHS can now use again

Expedited removal allows an immigration officer to order removal without the regular immigration court process for certain people found inadmissible under federal immigration law. The key statutory authority is 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1).

Under the expanded designation, DHS may apply expedited removal to certain people who have not been admitted or paroled into the United States and who cannot affirmatively show they have been continuously present for two years immediately before the inadmissibility determination.

That “affirmatively show” language is important. A person may need to produce proof quickly, such as leases, pay stubs, school records, medical records, church records, utility bills, tax documents, or other evidence. The D.C. Circuit majority emphasized that people receive notice and have an opportunity to object. The dissent argued that the procedure is inadequate for people encountered inside the country who may not be asked enough about how long they have lived here.

A person who expresses fear of persecution or torture should be referred for a protection screening. That safeguard matters, but it does not turn expedited removal into a full immigration court case. The ordinary removal process gives more time for counsel, evidence gathering, hearings, and review.

DHS has described expedited removal as a faster process. The D.C. Circuit opinion also recognized that Congress designed the process to operate quickly. Speed is the point of the policy. Speed is also a risk for people who need time to prove how long they have lived in the United States or to reach legal help.

Kentucky’s role is jail capacity, not border policy

Kentucky is part of the federal immigration detention network.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review lists multiple Kentucky detention facilities under the Memphis immigration court administrative control list. Those include Boone County Detention Center, Campbell County Detention Center, Christian County Jail, Daviess County Detention Center, Hopkins County Jail, Kenton County Detention Center, and Oldham County Detention Center.

Kentucky also has active local cooperation with ICE. The Kentucky Center for Economic Policy reported in February 2026 that 24 Kentucky law enforcement agencies had signed 287(g) agreements and 11 county jails were contracting with ICE to hold detainees.

Kentucky Lantern reported in March 2026 that ICE held 1,041 people in Kentucky jails in February, up from 434 in September. That increase shows why a federal procedural change can have local effects. More federal removals can mean greater demand for detention beds, increased pressure on local jail operations, and greater urgency for families and attorneys trying to locate people.

For Kentucky residents, the issue may appear first as a local jail question. Who is being held? Under what agreement? What is the county paid? What access do detainees have to phones, lawyers, documents, interpreters, family members, and court information?

Those are not abstract concerns. Expedited removal depends on fast officer decisions. A person who cannot quickly prove two years of presence may lose access to the ordinary immigration court path. A family may have days, not months, to find documents and counsel.

Share this with someone watching Kentucky jails and ICE

The county budget connection

Local jail participation can also create financial incentives.

When a Kentucky jail contracts to hold ICE detainees, the county may receive a per-diem payment. WDRB reported that the federal inmate payment in Oldham County was $73 per day. County budgets can then include federal detention revenue in jail planning.

That does not mean every local official supports expanded expedited removal, nor does it mean a county jailer controls federal immigration policy. DHS makes the federal removal decision. ICE controls detention and enforcement. Immigration officers decide whether to place a person in expedited removal.

County jailers and fiscal courts still matter. They approve jail operations, contracts, budgets, local policies, and public access to information. They decide whether county facilities participate in federal detention work and how much local budget planning depends on that revenue.

Who is affected

The most directly affected people are undocumented residents who cannot quickly prove two years of continuous presence. Recent arrivals, asylum seekers, workers, parents, students, and people without organized paperwork may face the highest risk.

Families are affected when a person is detained suddenly and moved quickly into removal screening. A spouse, child, employer, pastor, teacher, or attorney may need to gather records under extreme time pressure.

Kentucky jails are affected by federal detention, which creates operational demands. Phone access, legal visitation, language access, medical care, transfer procedures, and recordkeeping become more important when removal timelines shrink.

Taxpayers are affected when county budgets depend on jail revenue from ICE detention. Even when federal money comes into a county, local residents have a right to know what obligations, staffing demands, liability risks, and oversight duties accompany that money.

Legal-aid organizations and private immigration attorneys are affected because expedited removal compresses the timeline for representation. When a person has less time to find counsel, access to attorneys within detention facilities becomes more important.

What to ask your fiscal court and jailer

Ask your fiscal court whether the county jail holds people for ICE. Request the current ICE detention contract, per-diem rate, projected revenue, and any 287(g) memorandum of agreement.

Read the jail budget. Look for federal inmate revenue, ICE revenue, detention reimbursement, or similar language. Compare the projected amount with prior-year actual revenue.

Ask the jailer what legal access looks like for ICE detainees. Ask about phone calls, attorney visits, remote hearings, language access, medical care, grievance procedures, and family notification.

Track fiscal court agendas. ICE contracts, jail budgets, staffing requests, facility expansions, and detention revenue may appear in ordinary county meetings.

Request public records. Ask for contracts, memoranda of agreement, inspection reports, jail population reports, grievance summaries, and communications with ICE.

Document local effects carefully. If families, attorneys, clergy, or advocates report barriers to legal access or document gathering, those details matter. The key question is whether people have a real chance to prove continuous presence or request protection before removal.

Share accurate information with people who may be affected. Anyone at risk should gather proof of time spent in the United States, keep copies with a trusted person, and speak with a qualified immigration attorney or a legal aid organization.

Dispatches from Kentucky

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?