A three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston has largely upheld a ruling that found the Trump administration’s third-country removal policy unlawful. The court said migrants must receive a “meaningful” opportunity to raise safety concerns before being deported to countries where they have no ties.
What the judges decided
US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote that the administration had taken too narrow a view of the law. The panel rejected the argument that migrants could be removed without a meaningful chance to present safety concerns.
The court did overturn part of the earlier ruling on procedural grounds. That portion concerned whether officials must first try to deport migrants to countries with which they have ties.
Key points
- The case is a class-action lawsuit over the due process owed before removal to a third country.
- The policy was adopted in March 2025 and allowed removals with minimal notice when officials had diplomatic assurances against persecution.
- The United States has agreements allowing the transfer of more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, according to Third Country Deportation Watch.
- The programme has reached the Supreme Court twice.
Why the case matters
The lawsuit challenges the process used to send people to nations that were not part of their original removal proceedings. Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the ruling prevents due-process and anti-persecution protections from being bypassed by placing someone on a plane to an unfamiliar country.
The policy has already been tested at the Supreme Court. In 2025, the justices cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan. The US State Department advises against travel there because of crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. Read the context: Court rulings put South Sudanese and Myanmar nationals at risk of deportation.
What happens next
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the appeals court ruling, which could bring the dispute before the Supreme Court again. The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately comment on the decision.
No comments yet. Start the discussion.