Federal Appeals Court Blocks Trump Administration's Controversial Third-Country Migrant Deportation Policy

A US federal appeals court has officially rejected the Trump administration's policy regarding the rapid deportation of migrants to nations other than their home countries, setting up a potential legal battle at the Supreme Court.

On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely upheld a February decision determining that the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy is unlawful. The legal challenge originates from a class-action lawsuit evaluating the due process rights owed to migrants before they are transferred to nations where they lack any prior ties.

US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, writing for the panel, stated that migrants must be provided a meaningful opportunity to express safety concerns prior to removal, thereby rejecting the narrower interpretation of the law advanced by the Trump administration. However, the court did overturn a specific portion of the previous ruling on procedural grounds related to whether officials are required to first attempt deportations to countries with which migrants maintain direct connections.

Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the plaintiffs representing the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, emphasized that the decision reaffirms that due process and congressional protections against persecution and torture cannot be bypassed simply by placing individuals on a flight to a country that was never included in their removal proceedings.

The Department of Homeland Security did not provide an immediate statement, though the Trump administration is anticipated to challenge the ruling. Data from Third Country Deportation Watch—a tracking initiative managed by the advocacy organizations Refugees International and Human Rights First—indicates that under the Trump administration, the US has established agreements enabling the transfer of over 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, with Mexico being the most frequent destination.

Implemented in March 2025, the policy permitted removals with minimal notification provided that officials secured diplomatic assurances against persecution. This contentious program has previously reached the Supreme Court twice. In 2025, the high court allowed the deportation of eight men, including nationals from Cuba, Myanmar, and Vietnam, to South Sudan—a nation where the US State Department advises against travel due to ongoing crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict. While the Department of Homeland Security celebrated these removals as a victory, human rights organizations argued that the actions violated fundamental legal protections.

Meanwhile, the broader immigration agenda of the Trump administration has encountered multiple legal hurdles this month. A federal judge recently blocked proposed caps on student and journalist visas, characterizing the government's rationale as exceptionally weak. Additionally, a coalition consisting of 22 states and Washington, DC, filed a lawsuit to halt a separate rule that would grant officials the authority to deny green cards to immigrants who legally utilize public benefits.