Robert L. Wilkins

An appeals court allowed the Trump administration to expand fast-track deportations nationwide, permitting expedited removal of immigrants in the interior of the U.S. who cannot prove they have been in the country for more than two years. The 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the policy, which had been blocked by lower courts over due process concerns. Judges Justin R. Walker and Neomi Rao supported the decision, while Judge Robert L. Wilkins dissented.

A U.S. appeals court ruled 2-1 to allow the Trump administration to expand fast-track deportations nationwide, enabling removal of immigrants in the interior who cannot prove two years of U.S. presence. The decision overturned lower court blocks citing due process concerns, with dissenting Judge Robert L. Wilkins opposing the policy's implementation. The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling, while immigrant rights group Make the Road New York argued the policy lacks adequate notice and safeguards.

A U.S. appeals court upheld the Trump administration's expanded fast-track deportation policy, allowing expedited removal of immigrants in the U.S. interior who cannot prove two years of residency. The 2-1 decision by the D.C. Circuit Court vacated lower court rulings that blocked the policy over due process concerns. Judges Justin R. Walker and Neomi Rao supported the policy, while Judge Robert L. Wilkins dissented, arguing it violated immigrant rights.

A U.S. appellate court approved the Trump administration's expanded use of fast-track deportations for immigrants in the country's interior, allowing removals without immigration judge appearances. The 2-1 decision upheld the policy as lawful, rejecting concerns about due process, while dissenting judge Robert L. Wilkins supported a lower court's block on the policy.

An appeals court allowed the Trump administration to expand fast-track deportations to the U.S. interior, reversing lower court decisions that blocked the policy over due process concerns. The 2-1 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found the policy did not violate immigrants' rights, enabling removals without immigration judge appearances for those who cannot prove two years of U.S. presence.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Trump administration policy banning transgender military members violated their constitutional right to equal protection, allowing some plaintiffs to continue service. The 2-1 decision, issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, upheld a lower court ruling and found the policy arbitrary and based on animus. The case, Talbott et al v. Trump, involves eight active-duty service members and others seeking enlistment.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Trump administration policy banning transgender military members from service violates their constitutional right to equal protection, allowing some plaintiffs to continue serving. The 2-1 decision found the policy 'arbitrary and based upon animus,' while a dissent argued the military can restrict rights differently than civilians. The preliminary injunction applies only to the case's plaintiffs and does not block the policy for all transgender service members or enlistees.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Trump-era policy banning transgender military members from service violates constitutional equal protection rights, allowing plaintiffs in the case to continue serving. The 2-1 decision found the policy 'arbitrary and based upon animus' toward transgender individuals, though the injunction does not apply universally to all transgender service members or those seeking enlistment.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Trump administration policy banning transgender military members from service violates constitutional equal protection rights, allowing some plaintiffs to continue serving. The 2-1 decision temporarily halts the policy but does not apply universally to all transgender service members or those seeking enlistment.

An appeals court ruled that President Donald Trump's transgender military ban, implemented via an executive order in January 2025, violates constitutional equal protection rights due to being 'driven by the bare desire to harm' transgender individuals. The 2-1 decision upheld a lower court's preliminary injunction allowing case plaintiffs to continue service, though the ruling does not universally apply to all transgender service members or those seeking enlistment. Judge Justin R. Walker dissented, arguing the military has unique authority over its members.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Trump administration policy banning transgender military members from service violates constitutional equal protection rights, allowing involved plaintiffs to continue serving. The 2-1 decision found the policy arbitrary and based on animus, though it does not universally apply to all transgender service members or those seeking enlistment.

A federal appeals court ruled that a Trump-era policy banning transgender military members from service violates constitutional equal protection rights, allowing plaintiffs to continue serving temporarily. The 2-1 decision criticized the policy as arbitrary and driven by animus toward transgender individuals, though it does not universally apply to all transgender service members or those seeking enlistment.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that a Trump administration policy banning transgender military members from service violates their constitutional right to equal protection, allowing involved plaintiffs to continue serving. The decision, a preliminary injunction, found the policy 'arbitrary and based upon animus,' while a dissenting judge argued the military has authority to restrict service members' rights.

A U.S. appeals court ruled that a Trump-era policy banning transgender military members from service violates constitutional equal protection rights, allowing some plaintiffs to continue serving. The 2-1 decision temporarily halts the policy but does not apply universally to all transgender service members or enlistees.

A U.S. federal appeals court ruled that a Trump administration policy banning transgender military members from service violates their constitutional right to equal protection. The 2-1 decision allows eight plaintiffs to continue serving but does not extend to all transgender service members or those seeking enlistment. The policy, issued via executive order in 2025 and enforced by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, was deemed arbitrary and driven by animus toward transgender individuals.