Challenging Fast-Track Policy Targeting Somali Immigrants

This case challenges a Trump-Vance administration policy that singles out Somali immigrants for accelerated immigration proceedings, drastically limiting their access to legal representation and to a fair hearing.

The plaintiffs—Hines Immigration Law, PLLC and The Advocates for Human Rights—are legal service providers that represent immigrants in removal proceedings. They bring this case on behalf of themselves and their clients, many of whom are Somali asylum seekers facing life-threatening consequences if removed.

The lawsuit challenges what plaintiffs describe as the “Somali Fast-Track Policy,” implemented in early 2026 by the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). The policy creates a separate, nationalized docket for Somali immigrants and assigns their cases to a subset of immigration judges, often outside their geographic jurisdiction.

Under this policy, hearings that would normally be scheduled months or years in advance are instead set on extremely compressed timelines, sometimes just weeks away. Attorneys are forced to prepare complex asylum cases under unrealistic deadlines, making it difficult or impossible to gather evidence, secure expert testimony, and adequately represent their clients.

The complaint explains that immigration law guarantees individuals facing removal the right to counsel and a meaningful opportunity to present their claims. The Somali Fast-Track Policy undermines those protections by making effective representation nearly impossible and by depriving Somali immigrants of a full and fair hearing.

The lawsuit further alleges that the policy violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is arbitrary, lacks any reasoned explanation, and departs from longstanding practices without justification. It also raises constitutional claims, arguing that the policy violates due process by denying fair proceedings, equal protection by targeting individuals based on nationality, and the First Amendment by interfering with attorneys’ ability to represent their clients.

Legal service providers have already been forced to divert resources, turn away clients, and manage overwhelming scheduling conflicts. Without intervention, Somali immigrants face the risk of removal without having a meaningful chance to present their claims for protection.

While the plaintiffs’ request for immediate court intervention was denied, the judge noted that “the unrebutted record does suggest some form of coordinated effort directed only at nondetained Somali aliens.” The case will continue on the merits.