US appeals court strikes down rapid third-country deportation policy
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that migrants must be afforded a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns before being removed to nations with which they have no ties.
A three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has largely upheld a February decision declaring the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy unlawful. The ruling rejects the Trump administration’s approach to rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own, a decision that is expected to be appealed and could ultimately reach the Supreme Court.
The case originates from a class-action lawsuit testing the due process rights of migrants sent to nations with which they have no established ties. Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe stated that migrants must be given a “meaningful” chance to raise safety concerns before removal. This determination rejected the administration’s narrower interpretation of the law, which had prioritised speed over procedural safeguards.
However, the court did overturn a portion of the previous ruling on procedural grounds. This specific section concerned whether officials are required to first attempt deportation to countries where migrants have existing ties before considering third-country removal.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the decision confirmed that due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by placing migrants on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings. The Department of Homeland Security had not immediately commented on the ruling at the time of reporting.
Under the Trump administration, the US has signed agreements allowing it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, most frequently Mexico. The policy, adopted in March 2025, permitted removals with minimal notice if officials secured diplomatic assurances against persecution.
The controversial programme has previously reached the Supreme Court twice. In 2025, the justices cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan. The Department of Homeland Security described those removals as a win, while rights groups argued they flouted basic protections.
The ruling adds to a series of setbacks for the administration’s immigration agenda this month. A federal judge recently blocked planned caps on student and journalist visas, while a coalition of 22 states and Washington, DC, has sued to stop a rule that would deny green cards to immigrants who lawfully use public benefits.
