U.S. District Judge Jia Cobb on Friday told lawyers in a Washington courtroom that foreigners affected by the administration’s expansion of immigration enforcement “must be afforded due process under the Fifth Amendment,” a finding that marks a significant legal rebuke to a policy designed to accelerate removals and narrow avenues for asylum.

The statement came in a challenge brought by civil rights organizations and state plaintiffs who argue the expansion, unveiled by federal officials this month, would allow broad swaths of people to be removed or denied relief without access to meaningful hearings before an immigration judge. The plaintiffs asked the court for a preliminary injunction to block parts of the expansion while the case proceeds; Judge Cobb’s comments signaled judicial skepticism that the government can simply apply the new rules without individualized procedural protections.

Legal experts say the ruling rests on well-established constitutional principles. The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process has long been interpreted to protect “persons,” not just citizens, when the government acts in ways that deprive them of liberty or property within the United States. Past Supreme Court decisions, including Mathews v. Eldridge and Zadvydas v. Davis, have required courts to weigh the private interest at stake, the risk of erroneous deprivation, and the government’s interest in efficiency and security — a framework that attorneys for the plaintiffs urged Judge Cobb to apply.

Beyond its legal mechanics, the decision is already being read as a flashpoint for communities and local health systems. Public health officials and immigrant-rights advocates have warned that accelerated removals and curtailed access to asylum can drive migrants away from seeking medical care, testing, vaccines, and social services, compounding communicable disease risks and mental-health crises.

“Policies that truncate procedural safeguards also exacerbate fear in healthcare settings and public health programs,” said one public health practitioner familiar with border health responses. Hospitals in border and interior cities frequently absorb the immediate consequences when enforcement spikes: increased uncompensated care, disrupted continuity for patients with chronic conditions, and added strain on clinics that serve noncitizen populations.

Local governments that joined the lawsuit cited similar concerns about the policy’s downstream costs, arguing that rushed enforcement would force municipalities to divert funds to emergency medical care and shelter, and could undercut long-term public health objectives. Economists and advocates point out that preventive care and vaccination programs are more cost-effective than episodic emergency responses, an argument that ties due process disputes to fiscal as well as human consequences.

The Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security have said publicly they will defend the expansion as necessary for border management and national security. Court observers expect the government to appeal any injunction quickly to the U.S. Court of Appeals and potentially to the Supreme Court, creating the prospect of a protracted legal battle that could determine the practical reach of the administration’s enforcement ambitions.

For now, Judge Cobb’s insistence on procedural protections places the question squarely before the courts: whether the urgency of immigration enforcement can override individual rights that courts have long protected. The outcome will determine not only who gets a hearing but how closely constitutional guarantees shape policies that touch health, safety and equity in communities across the country.