Appeals court backs due process for immigrants deported to third countries

Overview

Updated 7 days ago

The Supreme Court on September 29 let the Trump administration keep deporting immigrants to third countries while it reviews the case, an order three liberal justices dissented from. The court will hear arguments in December on whether the policy is lawful, whether lower courts had authority to block it, and whether it violates the Constitution's due process clause.

The dispute began when a federal appeals court backed a ruling that migrants must get a chance to argue they'd face persecution or torture before removal to a country with no ties to them. The administration said that ruling forced cancellation of a flight carrying 70 people. A ruling for the government would let the policy stand; one for the immigrants would give thousands a hearing before removal.

Why it matters

This ruling decides whether the government can deport immigrants to any willing country with only scant notice, without letting them raise fears of torture.

Monday: what changed in Boston, MA

One short email a week with the openings, closings, permits and council votes we covered. Free. Unsubscribe in one click.

Questions about this story

Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.

No questions yet — be the first to ask.

Key Indicators

25,000

Migrants deported to third countries

Number sent to at least 29 third countries under the policy, per Third Country Deportation Watch.

Supreme Court emergency grants

Three times the court granted emergency relief letting deportations proceed, including the September 29 order.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

People Involved

Brian Murphy

U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts

Presiding over the class action

Seth Aframe

Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Author of the appeals court opinion

Trina Realmuto

Executive Director, National Immigration Litigation Alliance

Lead attorney for plaintiffs

Organizations Involved

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Federal Agency

Defendant in the case

The agency that adopted the third-country deportation policy under the Trump administration.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Federal Appellate Court

Issued the ruling

Boston-based federal appeals court covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island.

National Immigration Litigation Alliance

Nonprofit Legal Advocacy

Plaintiffs' counsel

Works to protect immigrants' rights through litigation.

Timeline

March 2025 September 2026

10 events Latest: September 24th, 2026 · 1 week ago

Tap a bar to jump to that date

September 2026
Trump administration asks Supreme Court for emergency relief
Latest Legal

The Justice Department filed an emergency application asking the Supreme Court to let deportations resume, arguing the appeals court ruling had forced cancellation of a flight and that justices needed to step in to 'halt that chaos.'
September 24th, 2026
First Circuit dissolves stay, forcing flight cancellation
Legal

The appeals court dissolved its stay pending appeal, putting its September 18 ruling into effect and forcing cancellation of a deportation flight scheduled to carry 70 people to three countries.
September 23rd, 2026 • 11:30 PM
Appeals court upholds due process requirement
Legal

The First Circuit largely affirmed Murphy's ruling, allowing immigrants to challenge deportation destinations. It vacated two declarations that would have required DHS to first seek removal to designated home countries.
September 18th, 2026
DHS says third-country deportation policy continues
Policy

General Counsel James Percival said the ruling is not currently in effect and the policy continues, citing the Supreme Court's prior stays. The government is expected to appeal.
September 18th, 2026
February 2026
District court strikes down policy
Legal

Judge Murphy ruled the third-country deportation policy unconstitutional, requiring meaningful notice and a chance to contest.
February 26th, 2026
June 2025
Judge finds government violated his order
Legal

Murphy called the South Sudan flight 'unquestionably in violation' of his injunction, citing the lack of meaningful notice.
June 20th, 2025
Supreme Court lifts injunction twice
Supreme Court

In June 2025 the court voted 6-3 to lift Murphy's injunction, then overruled him again days later, 7-2, after he tried to block the South Sudan flight. The stays let deportations resume while appeals continued.
June 15th, 2025
Eight immigrants flown to South Sudan
Deportation

The men were removed hours after notice, without a meaningful chance to object. They were held in a shipping container on a U.S. Navy base in Djibouti.
June 10th, 2025
March 2025
Judge Murphy issues preliminary injunction
Legal

The district judge temporarily blocked the policy, saying immigrants must have a chance to contest their destination.
March 15th, 2025
DHS adopts third-country deportation policy
Policy

The department allowed removal of immigrants to third countries with minimal notice, based on diplomatic assurances of safety.
March 1st, 2025

Scenarios

Supreme Court revives fast-track third-country deportations

Likely Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Trump administration officials, conservative legal analysts

The government appeals the First Circuit decision. The conservative-majority Court grants certiorari and sides with the executive, ruling that diplomatic assurances suffice and that immigrants have no freestanding due process right to contest a third-country destination. The policy resumes, possibly with minor procedural tweaks.

Supreme Court upholds due process requirement

Possible Resolves by Q2 2027

Discussed by: Civil liberties groups, immigration attorneys

The Court affirms the First Circuit, finding that the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a meaningful opportunity for immigrants to raise fear of persecution or torture before removal to any country. The policy is modified to include individualized hearings, slowing the pace of third-country removals.

DHS revises policy to comply without further appeal

Unlikely Resolves by End of 2026

Discussed by: Immigration policy analysts

Rather than risk a Supreme Court defeat, the administration revises the policy to provide meaningful notice and a chance to contest destinations. The case becomes moot as DHS implements new procedures, though enforcement of existing deportations continues under the revised rules.

Historical Context

2 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.

March 1903

Yamataya v. Fisher (1903)

The Supreme Court ruled that a Japanese immigrant facing deportation had the right to a fair hearing, establishing that the Fifth Amendment's due process clause applies to noncitizens on U.S. soil. The case involved a young woman who was ordered deported without an opportunity to present her side.

Then

The Court ordered that she be given a hearing, setting a precedent for procedural protections in immigration proceedings.

Now

Yamataya became the cornerstone of due process for noncitizens, ensuring that even deportees can challenge the basis of their removal.

Why this matters now

This case affirms the principle that immigrants are entitled to due process before the government strips them of liberty. The current dispute tests whether that principle extends to the choice of destination country, not just the fact of removal.

June 2020

Nasrallah v. Barr (2020)

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court held that a noncitizen could challenge factual findings about the risk of torture in his home country during a deportation appeal, even when other deportation orders are not reviewable. The case involved a Lebanese Druze man who fled Hezbollah.

Then

Nidal Nasrallah's case was remanded for review of his torture claim.

Now

The ruling opened the door for courts to examine torture risk assessments, even in expedited removal contexts.

Why this matters now

The current case extends this reasoning: if courts can review torture claims for deportations to a home country, they should also allow review when the destination is a third country the immigrant has never lived in.