Appeals Court Rules DHS Can't Fast-Track Deportations to Third Countries
The unanimous First Circuit ruling does not stop third-country deportations outright. It requires notice and a chance to object, a distinction DHS's general counsel says means the policy 'continues' for now, with a Supreme Court trip likely next.
By Jonah Reyes, Politics & Policy
· 4 min read · Updated
Key Takeaways
- •The First Circuit ruled Friday, September 18, that DHS must give notice and a fear-of-persecution hearing before deporting someone to a third country.
- •The panel of Seth Aframe, Jeffrey R. Howard and Lara Montecalvo largely affirmed a February 25, 2026 ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy.
- •More than 25,000 people have been deported to third countries under the Trump administration, with about 80 percent sent to Mexico.
- •The Supreme Court already intervened once in this case, staying Murphy's injunction in June 2025 and allowing deportations, including eight men sent to South Sudan, to resume.
- •DHS General Counsel James Percival says the policy 'continues' because the ruling is not yet in effect, and the case is expected to head to the Supreme Court again.
A federal appeals court ruled Friday that the Trump administration cannot deport people to third countries without telling them their destination first. The unanimous panel left the underlying policy in place. It now requires the government to give detainees real notice and a chance to raise a fear of persecution before removal.
The ruling came from a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston: Seth Aframe, who wrote the opinion, Jeffrey R. Howard and Lara Montecalvo. It largely affirmed a February 25 decision by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts, who found the administration's third-country removal practice unlawful in the underlying case, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, according to ABC News.
Aframe framed the legal question directly in the opinion: 'Before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?' The panel's answer was yes.
The short answer
The First Circuit ruled Friday that DHS cannot deport people to third countries without giving them notice of the destination and a chance to raise a fear of persecution first. It did not ban third-country deportations outright, and DHS says the policy 'continues' since the ruling is not yet in effect. More than 25,000 people have been sent to third countries under the policy since 2025, and the case is expected to reach the Supreme Court again.
“An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination.”
A case that already went up once
This is not the case's first stop at a higher court. Murphy issued a temporary restraining order in March 2025 and a preliminary injunction that April, but the Supreme Court stayed the injunction in June 2025, letting deportations resume while the case continued, then clarified the stay in July. Within days of that clarification, the government deported eight men to South Sudan, a country most of them had never set foot in, according to CBS News. Murphy ruled against the policy again in February 2026, and Friday's decision affirms that finding, with one addition: removals themselves are not barred, only removals carried out without notice.
25,000+
migrants deported to third countries under the second Trump administration
About 80 percent were sent to Mexico. The government has also signed formal third-country agreements with 35 nations, including Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone, and has spent an estimated $50 million on those arrangements.
The government's case for the policy
DHS has defended third-country removals as a tool for deporting people whose home countries refuse to accept them, often people with criminal records, arguing the practice also deters unlawful migration and discourages people from remaining in the country once ordered removed. The agency does not dispute that some deportees got little or no warning before being placed on a flight. Its position is that as long as a receiving country provides diplomatic assurances against torture or persecution, no additional notice to the deportee was legally required, a position the First Circuit rejected as insufficient on its own.
DHS General Counsel James Percival disputed the ruling's immediate effect. 'The third country deportation policy continues, as the First Circuit's ruling is not currently in effect,' he wrote on X late Friday. 'If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere.'
What advocates and what's next
My Khanh Ngo, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, which represents the plaintiffs, called the decision a rebuke. 'The courts have resoundingly rejected the administration's cruel policy and its blatant disrespect for the rule of law,' she said.
Percival's team is expected to seek Supreme Court review, the same path that produced the administration's win at the injunction stage last year. That history means Friday's ruling settles nothing permanently. It does mean that, for now, anyone facing a third-country deportation is entitled to know the destination and get a chance to say why it is dangerous before the flight leaves.
- deportation
- First Circuit
- DHS
- immigration policy
- due process
- ACLU
Sources
- 01Appeals court rejects swift deportation of immigrants to third countries, ABC Newsabcnews.com
- 02Appeals court rejects Trump's third-country deportation policy, says detainees are entitled to more due process, CBS Newscbsnews.com
- 03US appeals court rejects Trump policy allowing swift deportations to third countries, Yahoo Newsyahoo.com
Corrections
No corrections have been made to this article.
About the reporter
Politics & Policy Reporter, Trestlewire
I cut my teeth covering a state legislature, which is a slower education than it sounds. Most of what actually changes people's lives happens in a committee markup at eleven at night, or in an agency rulemaking docket that nobody reads except the people it will affect — not in the thirty-second clip that makes the evening news. I spent years in statehouse press rooms learning to read a bill the way a lawyer does, line by line, because that is the only way to know what it actually does.
Read full bio and all stories →