A US appeals court has largely upheld a ruling against the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to third countries without giving them an opportunity to raise safety concerns.
A US appeals court has rejected a Trump administration policy that allowed authorities to deport migrants to countries they had no connection with, without first giving them an opportunity to raise concerns about potential persecution or torture.
The three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld a February ruling by a lower-court judge who found the Department of Homeland Security’s policy unlawful. The case, which is expected to reach the Supreme Court, centres on the due-process rights of migrants facing removal orders.
The ruling came in a class-action lawsuit brought by migrants subject to deportation orders. It examines the safeguards the government must provide before sending individuals to countries that were not part of their original removal proceedings.
"This decision confirms 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," Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said.
The Trump administration has reached a series of agreements allowing it to deport migrants to countries other than their own. According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a project run by Refugees International and Human Rights First, more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to at least 29 third countries, with Mexico among the destinations in many cases.
The administration has also deported people to countries including Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic.
The US government is expected to appeal the latest ruling. Earlier in the case, the administration persuaded the Supreme Court twice to lift a preliminary injunction protecting migrants’ due-process rights, clearing the way for eight men to be deported to South Sudan.
DHS General Counsel James Percival said on X that the policy remained in force because the 1st Circuit’s ruling had not yet taken effect.
"If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere," he said.
Policy introduced in March 2025
The Department of Homeland Security introduced the policy in March 2025 to address cases involving migrants who had received final deportation orders but had secured protection in immigration court against being returned to their countries of origin.
Under the policy, authorities could send migrants to alternative countries if they had credible diplomatic assurances that the individuals would not face persecution or torture there. However, the policy required only limited notice before a migrant could be transferred to a third country that had not provided such assurances to the State Department.
US District Judge Brian Murphy, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, subsequently set aside the policy. He concluded that it failed to uphold migrants’ due-process rights and could result in people being swiftly sent to unfamiliar and potentially dangerous countries without adequate notice.
The Trump administration argued on appeal that allowing Murphy’s ruling to stand would interfere with its authority to enforce potentially thousands of valid deportation orders involving third countries.
Appeals court backs meaningful opportunity to raise concerns
Writing for Friday’s panel, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said Murphy had adopted a "sensible" interpretation of immigration law. He said migrants must be given a "meaningful" opportunity to raise concerns before being deported.
"DHS's proposed interpretation would deny access to that protection to a substantial swath of noncitizens who are sent to third countries with no notice of their destination," Aframe wrote. "We decline to adopt such an interpretation."
The panel consisted of two judges appointed by Biden, including Aframe, and a judge appointed by a Republican president.
The appeals court, however, overturned one part of Murphy’s ruling on procedural grounds. That issue involved whether the government must first attempt to deport migrants to countries with which they have ties before sending them to third countries.
(With agency inputs)
