Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration’s Third-Country Deportation Policy

A US federal appeals court has struck down the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to nations other than their country of origin, a decision that is likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely affirmed a February ruling that declared the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) so-called third-country removal policy unlawful.

The legal challenge originated from a class-action lawsuit examining the due process rights owed to migrants prior to their transfer to countries where they have no existing connections. In the majority opinion, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe asserted that migrants are entitled to a “meaningful” opportunity to voice safety fears before deportation, rejecting the administration’s narrower legal interpretation. While the court overturned a portion of the lower ruling on procedural grounds regarding whether officials must first attempt deportation to nations with which the migrants have ties, the core finding of unlawfulness stood.

Trina Realmuto, an attorney representing the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, stated that the verdict reinforced the principle that “due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings.” The DHS did not immediately provide a comment, but the Trump administration is expected to appeal the decision.

Under the Trump administration, the US has entered into agreements permitting the transfer of more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, with Mexico being the most frequent destination. According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker operated by rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First, the policy—adopted in March 2025—allowed for removals with minimal notice provided diplomatic assurances against persecution were in place.

The controversial program has already reached the Supreme Court on two occasions. In 2025, justices permitted the deportation of eight men, including citizens of Cuba, Myanmar, and Vietnam, to South Sudan, a nation the US State Department warns against visiting due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.” The DHS characterized the removals as a success, whereas rights organizations argued they violated fundamental protections.

This ruling adds to a series of legal setbacks for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda this month. Earlier, a federal judge prohibited planned restrictions on student and journalist visas, describing the government’s rationale as “exceptionally weak.” Additionally, a coalition comprising 22 states and Washington, DC, filed a lawsuit challenging a separate regulation that would empower officials to deny green cards to immigrants who have lawfully utilized public benefits.