A federal appeals court ruled Friday that U.S. immigration officials must provide detainees with a meaningful opportunity to contest
any deportation to countries where they have no ties, marking a significant setback for the Trump administration’s controversial third-country deportation policy. The decision by the Boston-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a lower court’s finding that the policy violated due process rights by allowing swift removals without adequate notice or legal safeguards.
Appeals Court Strikes Down Trump-Era Third-Country Deportation Policy
Policy Allowed Deportation to Unfamiliar Nations Without Notice
The Trump administration’s policy, enacted in March 2025, permitted immigration officials to send migrants to third countries—such as Liberia, South Sudan, and other nations—without prior notice if those countries provided assurances they would not persecute or torture the deportees. In cases where such assurances were absent, the policy required minimal notice, sometimes as little as six hours, according to court records. The appeals court rejected this approach, stating that an individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution… means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination.
The ruling followed a class-action lawsuit challenging the policy, which has resulted in over 25,000 migrants being deported to at least 29 third countries, including Mexico, under the Trump administration. Advocacy groups highlighted cases where deportees, such as a group from South and Central America sent to Liberia, were not informed of their removal destination or given a chance to raise safety concerns. For over a year, many class members have been deported to countries they had never been told they could be removed to, with little or no notice,
said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.
Legal Challenges and Supreme Court Appeal Loom
The appeals court largely upheld a February 2026 ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, who had previously criticized the policy for failing to protect migrants from potential persecution. While the First Circuit overturned one procedural aspect of Murphy’s decision—concerning whether the government must prioritize deportation to a migrant’s country of origin first—it affirmed the core requirement for notice and due process. The Trump administration has signaled plans to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, which previously allowed eight migrants to be deported to South Sudan amid similar litigation.
DHS General Counsel James Percival stated the policy remains in effect, asserting that “if you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere.” However, the appeals court’s decision underscores growing legal and ethical scrutiny of the policy, which has been criticized for circumventing protections against torture and persecution by altering deportation destinations. The case highlights tensions between immigration enforcement and constitutional safeguards, with advocates arguing that the policy disproportionately impacts vulnerable migrants.