Signed, Sealed, Deported: How Due Process is Collapsing Under Trump’s Immigration Agenda

Very recently, a troubling pattern has emerged in U.S. immigration enforcement: individuals with legal status or pending claims are being deported due to bureaucratic errors, miscommunications, or outright negligence. Yunseo Chung, a Columbia University student and permanent U.S. resident, was identified as a “deportable alien” and nearly detained by ICE for participating in a pro-Palestinian protest [1]. In another case, Lewelyn Dixon, a Filipino green card holder, was mistakenly placed in deportation proceedings, despite having traveled internationally several times in the past without any issue [2]. Perhaps most disturbingly, asylum seeker Kilmar Abrego Garcia was deported to El Salvador due to an administrative error, imprisoned upon arrival, and regardless of a Supreme Court order for his return, the Trump administration refused to comply [3]. These cases are not isolated incidents: they exemplify how Trump’s immigration policies, coupled with an often error-prone enforcement system, have resulted in wrongful deportations that violate fundamental legal protections. At the heart of these cases lies a critical question: what happens when the government fails to uphold due process in immigration enforcement? The rise in wrongful deportations under the Trump administration highlights systemic failures in due process protections, exposing the dangerous consequences of an enforcement system that prioritizes efficiency over accuracy. By expediting removals without adequate judicial review, denying individuals a meaningful opportunity to contest their deportation, and allowing bureaucratic errors to dictate life-altering outcomes, these policies not only violate the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of lawn [4],” but also eroded broader democratic principles—undermining trust in the rule of law, weakening constitutional safeguards, and threatening the integrity of a system meant to protect the most vulnerable.

The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process is not limited to citizens—it extends to all “persons” within the United States, regardless of immigration status [5]. In the context of immigration enforcement, due process ensures that individuals facing removal have the right to a fair hearing, an opportunity to present evidence, and a chance to challenge the government’s case before an impartial decision-maker. This protection has been reaffirmed in key Supreme Court decisions, including Zadvydas v. Davis (2001), which held that the indefinite detention of a non-citizen violated due process [6]. Several other rulings underscore that immigration enforcement, while carried out through civil—not criminal—law, must still meet fundamental constitutional standards. When the government fails to uphold due process, the consequences are not merely bureaucratic mishaps—they are violations of a constitutional promise that even non-citizens will not be subjected to arbitrary or unjust state power.

However, the individuals at the center of these recent deportation cases were not undocumented or without legal footing—they had legitimate claims to remain in the United States. Yunseo Chung has been a legal permanent resident since the age of seven [7]. Lewelyn Dixon is a long-term green card holder [8]. Kilmar Abrego Garcia was granted a withholding of removal order [9]. These were not gray-area cases; they were people the law recognized as having a right, or at least a credible claim, to stay. What makes these deportations particularly troubling is that they expose a growing vulnerability not just for non-citizens without status, but for those who, under the law, should have been protected. In that light, this article defines wrongful deportation as the removal of individuals who had a legitimate legal claim to remain in the U.S. but were nevertheless deported due to government error, lack of procedural safeguards, or policy choices that circumvented due process. The erosion of these protections under the Trump administration didn’t just bend the rules—it broke a constitutional agreement. When the system fails even those who are supposed to be protected, it signals a broader threat to the integrity of due process itself.

Evidently, the Trump administration’s immigration agenda systematically chipped away at the structural safeguards meant to uphold the 5th Amendment’s due process legal requirement. One of the most significant changes was the Department of Homeland Security’s expansion of expedited removal, a notice that allows immigration officers to deport individuals without a hearing before a judge [10]. Previously limited to those apprehended near the border and within 14 days of entry, the administration extended expedited removal to anyone detained anywhere in the country who could not prove they had been in the U.S. continuously for two years [11]. This shift effectively eliminated legal recourse for many individuals who may have had valid claims—such as asylum seekers or visa holders caught without documentation—denying them their day in court. The Trump administration has also limited judicial oversight and fast-tracked deportations by restricting appeals, curbing judges’ discretion, and narrowing criteria for asylum [12]. These measures were framed as efficiency-driven reforms, but in practice, they have created a legal bottleneck where even minor mistakes or inconsistencies could lead to irrevocable consequences.

As these policies narrowed the opportunity for review and slowed the judicial process, they collided with an already overstretched and understaffed bureaucracy, further exacerbating the likelihood of error. The result was an increase in bureaucratic mismanagement, where clerical mistakes and rushed processing led to individuals being deported despite having lawful status or ongoing claims. Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s case exemplifies this: despite clear evidence of his asylum request and withholding of removal order, ICE deported him to El Salvador, where he was imprisoned—an outcome the agency later admitted was a mistake [13]. That rare public acknowledgment reveals how deep the cracks in the system run and how little accountability exists when due process is sidestepped. These weren’t inevitable consequences of a complicated system—they were the foreseeable outcomes of a policy regime that treated speed and enforcement as higher priorities than accuracy or justice.

These failures in policy and process are not just theoretical—they played out in devastating ways for individuals like Yunseo Chung, Lewelyn Dixon, and Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Together, these cases reveal a deliberate enforcement strategy that weaponized bureaucratic power to silence dissent, target marginalized communities, and undermine constitutional protections.

Yunseo Chung, a South Korean student at Columbia University, was detained by ICE despite being a lawful permanent resident [14]. Her case drew national attention not only because of her legal status, but because she had participated in a pro-Palestine campus protest [15]. This raised serious concerns about her detention being politically motivated—an act of retaliation against constitutionally protected speech [16]. Chung was not a prominent figure in the demonstrations, yet the Trump administration argued that her presence hindered foreign policy agenda to put an end to the spread of antisemitism and they swiftly moved to detain her [17], reflecting how aggressively and indiscriminately immigration enforcement operated under expedited removal. Her case underscores how due process can collapse when immigration agents are empowered to act unilaterally, even against individuals who have followed the law. More broadly, it highlights how the Trump administration’s enforcement apparatus could be used not just to remove people, but to silence them—chilling political expression, especially among immigrant communities.

Lewelyn Dixon’s experience as a Filipino green card holder shows how even individuals with long-standing legal status are not immune from being targeted by a system prone to error and devoid of adequate safeguards. Dixon was placed in deportation proceedings because of a felony she was convicted of more than 20 years ago, which she pled guilty for, paid her fines, and never served time [18]. This old case became a focal point in initiating removal proceedings [19], treating her as if she had no legal claim to remain. Dixon is not merely “vulnerable” under this system—she is a direct victim of it. As she remains in custody at the Northwest ICE Processing Center [20], the legal and psychological toll is immense, and entirely avoidable.

Furthermore, Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation exemplifies the human cost of administrative failure and the dangers of an enforcement regime that resists legal accountability. Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran asylum seeker, had been granted a withholding of removal order—a legal protection that barred his deportation due to the risk of persecution [21]. Nevertheless, ICE proceeded with his deportation based on the mistaken belief that he was affiliated with the criminal gang MS-13—an “administrative error” the agency later acknowledged—resulting in his transfer to El Salvador’s infamous mega-prison [22]. Although the Supreme Court has ruled his deportation unlawful and ordered the government to secure his return, the Trump administration has refused, claiming U.S. courts lacked authority to compel El Salvador to release one of its citizens [23]. This argument ignores the fact that El Salvador’s detention policy is supported by U.S. funding and political pressure. By denying responsibility, the administration effectively argued that it could deport someone unlawfully and face no legal obligation to fix the mistake. Trump requested an appeal in this case and it has been effectively rejected, yet Abrego Garcia remains imprisoned [24], revealing a broader pattern of resistance to judicial oversight in the immigration system.

At the heart of these wrongful deportation cases is the intended constitutional guarantee of due process, which crucially extends to all persons within U.S. jurisdiction—not just citizens [25]. In the context of the Fourteenth Amendment and immigration proceedings, due process has two essential dimensions: procedural—requiring fair procedures before deprivation of rights—and substantive—protecting against arbitrary government action regardless of the procedures used [26].

The Supreme Court has consistently upheld due process protections for non-citizens. In Yamataya v. Fisher (1903), the Court established that immigrants facing deportation are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard [27]. Later, in Landon v. Plasencia (1982), the Court affirmed that “an alien seeking initial admission has no constitutional rights regarding his application,” but “once an alien gains admission to our country and begins to develop the ties that go with permanent residence, his constitutional status changes accordingly [28].” This judicial recognition encompasses exactly the situations of Chung, Dixon, and Abrego Garcia—individuals who had established legal presence but were nonetheless deprived of due process.

Procedurally, due process in immigration requires, at minimum, an adequate notice of proceedings, a reasonable opportunity to present evidence, access to counsel (though not government-provided), an impartial adjudicator, and a decision based on substantial evidence [29]. The Trump administration’s expansion of expedited removal fundamentally undermined these requirements by empowering individual ICE officers to make unilateral removal decisions without judicial oversight—effectively stripping individuals of the opportunity to meaningfully challenge their deportation.

Substantively, due process limits the government’s power to act arbitrarily even when it follows formal procedures [30]—for example, by prohibiting actions that are so unjust or excessive that they violate basic principles of fairness and liberty, regardless of process. The Court recognized in Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) that “the Due Process Clause applies to all ‘persons’ within the United States, including aliens, whether their presence here is lawful, unlawful, temporary, or permanent [31].” This principle directly contradicts the government’s position in Abrego Garcia’s case, where it acknowledged a wrongful deportation but refused to take corrective action—a stance that effectively treats constitutional violations as irreversible once carried out, thereby nullifying the protective function of substantive due process. If the government can knowingly violate an individual’s rights and then disclaim any obligation to correct that violation, substantive due process becomes meaningless.

The deliberate narrowing of judicial review further compromises due process protections. Immigration judges, whose independence has been repeatedly questioned—most notably by the American Bar Association [32]—have faced increased political pressure, particularly during the Trump administration, with concerns about external influence on their decisions. Additionally, judges have been subjected to case completion quotas that prioritize speed over accuracy, undermining their ability to make thorough, fair rulings [33]. Meanwhile, the Board of Immigration Appeals increasingly issues summary affirmances without providing written opinions, thereby limiting the opportunity for meaningful appellate review [34].

The due process failures in these cases reflect a fundamental tension in immigration enforcement: the government’s legitimate interest in controlling borders versus constitutional constraints on executive power. While the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress and the executive possess substantial authority over immigration policy [35], this “plenary power” has never been understood to override constitutional protections entirely [36]. As Justice Jackson famously warned in Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei (1953), when government power operates without constitutional constraints, it risks becoming “a lawless power, an indefinite and unlimited despotism exercised by one branch of government over another” [37].

The wrongful deportations of Chung, Dixon, and Abrego Garcia illustrate how quickly constitutional guardrails can collapse when enforcement priorities overshadow due process requirements. Their experiences demonstrate that procedural protections on paper mean little without institutional mechanisms to ensure their consistent application. When the government wrongfully deports individuals with legal status—whether through error, negligence, or intentional policy—it violates not just immigration regulations, but the constitutional foundation that legitimizes government power in the first place.

As Abrego Garcia remains imprisoned, it poses a profound question about whether the Fifth Amendment’s promise extends to meaningful remedies when the government acknowledges constitutional violations. If the Supreme Court were to accept the administration’s argument that it cannot be compelled to correct its error, it would have effectively created a constitutional dead zone—a legal space where rights are recognized on paper but unenforceable in practice. In such a system, the government could violate an individual’s rights with impunity, knowing there is no obligation to provide a remedy. The stakes could not be higher: allowing this precedent would not only erode the foundational principle that every person is entitled to due process, but it would have also opened the door to unchecked executive power in immigration enforcement. It would mean that constitutional protections are contingent, not guaranteed — and that for certain groups, justice is not a right but a privilege, revocable at the state’s discretion.

[1] Knoblauch, Nadia. “DHS reported Yunseo Chung, CC ’26, to Secretary of State Marco Rubio only two days after her arrest at Milstein sit-in.” Columbia Spectator. April 15, 2025. https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/04/15/dhs-reported-yunseo-chung-cc-26-to-secretary-of-state-marco-rubio-only-two-days-after-her-arrest-at-milstein-sit-in/. [2] Rose, Joel. “Green-card holders, travelers caught in Trump’s immigration crackdown.” NPR. April 1, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/01/nx-s1-5339698/green-card-holders-detained-border-crackdown. [3] Garret, Luke. “Trump faces bipartisan criticism over Abrego Garcia deportation.” NPR. April 20, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/g-s1-61475/trump-faces-bipartisan-criticism-over-abrego-garcia-deportation [4] U.S. Const. amend. V. [5] Ibid. [6] Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). [7] Bromwich, Jonah E. and Aleaziz, Hamed. “Columbia Student Hunted by ICE Sues to Prevent Deportation.” The New York Times. March 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/nyregion/columbia-student-ice-suit-yunseo-chung.html. [8] Rose, Joel. “Green-card holders, travelers caught in Trump’s immigration crackdown.” NPR. April 1, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/01/nx-s1-5339698/green-card-holders-detained-border-crackdown. [9] Sardarizadeh, Shayan, Thomas, Merlyn, Horton, Jake, and Wendling, Mike. “What we know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13 Allegations.” BBC. April 18, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno. [10] Department of Homeland Security. Designating Aliens for Expedited Removal. January 21, 2025. [11] Ibid. [12] Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice. Pretermission of Legally Insufficient Applications for Asylum. April 11, 2025. [13] Garret, Luke. “Trump faces bipartisan criticism over Abrego Garcia deportation.” NPR. April 20, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/g-s1-61475/trump-faces-bipartisan-criticism-over-abrego-garcia-deportation. [14] Bromwich, Jonah E. and Aleaziz, Hamed. “Columbia Student Hunted by ICE Sues to Prevent Deportation.” The New York Times. March 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/nyregion/columbia-student-ice-suit-yunseo-chung.html. [15] Ibid. [16] U.S. Const. amend. I. [17] Bromwich, Jonah E. and Aleaziz, Hamed. “Columbia Student Hunted by ICE Sues to Prevent Deportation.” The New York Times. March 24, 2025. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/nyregion/columbia-student-ice-suit-yunseo-chung.html. [18] Owen Gu Law Group. “Increased Border Scrutiny: Green Card Holders Face Growing Risks When Reentering the U.S.” Owen Gu Law Group, P.C. April 5, 2025. https://www.owenlawpc.com/post/increased-border-scrutiny-green-card-holders-face-growing-risks-when-reentering-the-u-s. [19] Ibid. [20] Rose, Joel. “Green-card holders, travelers caught in Trump’s immigration crackdown.” NPR. April 1, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/01/nx-s1-5339698/green-card-holders-detained-border-crackdown. [21] Sardarizadeh, Shayan, Thomas, Merlyn, Horton, Jake, and Wendling, Mike. “What we know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia and MS-13 Allegations.” BBC. April 18, 2025. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1k4072e3nno. [22] Ibid. [23] Garret, Luke. “Trump faces bipartisan criticism over Abrego Garcia deportation.” NPR. April 20, 2025. https://www.npr.org/2025/04/20/g-s1-61475/trump-faces-bipartisan-criticism-over-abrego-garcia-deportation. [24] Ibid. [25] U.S. Const. amend. V. [26] Chapman, Nathan S. and Yoshino, Kenji. “The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/701 [27] Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903). [28] Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U.S. 21 (1982). [29] U.S. Const. amend. V. [30] Chapman, Nathan S. and Yoshino, Kenji. “The Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.” National Constitution Center. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/amendment-xiv/clauses/701. [31] Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). [32] American Bar Association. “Time for an Independent Immigration Court.” American Bar Association. February 27, 2022. https://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/publications/washingtonletter/feb-22-wl/article-i-courts-0222wl/#:~:text=This%20lack%20of%20independence%20in,learn%20more%20as%20developments%20occur. [33] American Immigration Lawyers Association. “The Need for an Independent Immigration Court Grows More Urgent As DOJ Imposes Quotas on Immigration Judges.” Press release. October 1, 2018. https://www.aila.org/library/need-independent-court-doj-judges. [34] Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice. Board of Immigration Appeals: Affirmance Without Opinion, Referral for Panel Review, and Publication of Decisions as Precedents. July 2, 2019. [35] Constitution Annotated. “ArtI.S8.C18.8.1 Overview of Congress’s Immigration Powers.” Congress.gov. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-1/ALDE_00013836/ [36] Constitution Annotated. “ArtI.S8.C18.8.7.1 Overview of Immigration Plenary Power Doctrine.” Congress.gov. Accessed April 20, 2025. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S8-C18-8-7-1/ALDE_00013842/. [37] Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953).