- A federal judge blocked a Trump administration rule that sought to drastically tighten immigration appeal timelines and procedures.
- The proposed changes would have slashed appeal deadlines from 30 days to just 10 days for noncitizens.
- The court found the government likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act by bypassing necessary notice and comment periods.
(DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA) — U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss halted a Trump administration rule that would have sharply restricted immigration appeals, issuing a preliminary injunction hours before it was set to take effect on March 9, 2026.
Moss’s order keeps existing Board of Immigration Appeals procedures in place while litigation continues over the administration’s effort to accelerate removals by tightening appellate review.
The March 8, 2026 ruling came in Amica Center for Immigrant Rights v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, Case No. 1:26-cv-00696, a challenge to an interim final rule published on February 6, 2026 as 91 FR 5267.
In a 73-page opinion, Moss said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on claims that the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and raised due process problems under the Fifth Amendment.
The judge found the Executive Office for Immigration Review improperly bypassed the notice-and-comment process by issuing the changes as an interim final rule, a move that allowed the new system to begin almost immediately.
Moss also warned that, without the safeguards the plaintiffs sought, the “overwhelming majority” of immigration appeals would receive “no meaningful consideration.”
The blocked rule, titled “Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals,” would have cut the deadline for noncitizens to file a Notice of Appeal from 30 days to 10 days.
It also would have replaced the automatic right to a merits review with a “summary dismissal” system, under which appeals would be dismissed unless a majority of the 15 permanent BIA members voted within 10 days to hear the case.
Under the same framework, the BIA could dismiss appeals before a transcript of the immigration judge’s hearing was produced or reviewed, a change challengers said risked decisions without a full record.
The rule would have imposed simultaneous 20-day briefing schedules and eliminated reply briefs, further narrowing the time and tools available for people trying to contest removal orders.
Moss’s injunction pauses implementation of those changes, but it does not finally decide whether the rule is lawful, leaving the broader dispute to proceed on a fuller record in court.
On March 9, 2026, the Department of Justice and EOIR generally declined to comment on the specific ruling, as advocates for immigrants praised the injunction as an immediate backstop against fast-track dismissals.
“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 steps in ensuring that immigration courts reach decisions based on the law rather than on pre-determined outcomes,” said Emilie Raber, Senior Attorney at the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights.
“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. The government must follow the law and cannot strip people of their basic rights,” said Erez Reuveni, Senior Counsel at Democracy Forward.
“This ruling keeps in place a basic, yet critical, protection for immigrants facing removal: the ability to appeal their case. Without this decision, countless immigrants with valid claims would have been hurriedly deported to dangerous conditions, forsaking due process for efficiency,” said Laura St. John, Legal Director at the Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project.
The Trump administration justified the rule as a response to a backlog of over 202,000 pending appeals, describing it in the interim final rule as a five-fold increase since 2015.
In the interim final rule, DOJ argued the changes would “incentivize aliens to depart the United States voluntarily” and prevent “unnecessary delays,” framing the overhaul as a way to push earlier case resolution and reduce administrative strain.
Broader pressures continue across the immigration court system, where the national backlog exceeds 3.3 million cases, even as Moss’s decision leaves the status quo in place for immigration appeals for now.
For people in removal proceedings and the lawyers who represent them, the injunction means the 30-day appeal window and existing briefing practices remain in effect unless another court order changes them, while the government weighs its next steps, including possible motions and a potential appeal.
The challenged rule appeared in the Federal Register as 91 FR 5267, and DOJ posted related materials on its EOIR Notices and Rules page, with the full rule text available as Appellate Procedures for the Board of Immigration Appeals (IFR).
