Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why Sign Up
Appeals court backs due process for immigrants deported to third countries

Appeals court backs due process for immigrants deported to third countries

Rule Changes Boston, MA local

First Circuit upholds ruling that migrants must get a meaningful chance to object before removal to unfamiliar nations

Today: Appeals court upholds due process requirement

Overview

Updated 1 hour ago

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled that immigrants facing deportation to third countries have a right to challenge the destination in court, upholding a lower court's decision that blocked a Trump administration policy. The ruling stops the government from rapidly shipping migrants to nations they have no ties to without letting them argue they'd face persecution or torture.

The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court, where the administration has already won two emergency stays that allowed deportations to proceed. If the decision stands, it could force immigration authorities to provide meaningful hearings for thousands of migrants before removal to unfamiliar countries.

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.

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.
2
Supreme Court emergency stays
Twice the administration got the Supreme Court to lift the preliminary injunction, allowing deportations.

Voices

Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.

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

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Log in Sign Up

People Involved

Brian Murphy
Brian Murphy
U.S. District Judge, District of Massachusetts
Presiding over the class action
 Seth Aframe
Seth Aframe
Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
Author of the appeals court opinion
TR
Trina Realmuto
Executive Director, National Immigration Litigation Alliance
Lead attorney for plaintiffs

Organizations Involved

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
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
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
National Immigration Litigation Alliance
Nonprofit Legal Advocacy
Plaintiffs' counsel

Works to protect immigrants' rights through litigation.

Timeline

March 2025 September 2026

7 events Latest: Today
Tap a bar to jump to that date

  1. Appeals court upholds due process requirement

    Today Legal

    The First Circuit largely affirmed Murphy's ruling, allowing immigrants to challenge deportation destinations. It overturned one procedural part.

  2. District court strikes down policy

    Legal

    Judge Murphy ruled the third-country deportation policy unconstitutional, requiring meaningful notice and a chance to contest.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. Supreme Court lifts injunction twice

    Supreme Court

    The administration obtained two emergency stays from the Supreme Court, reinstating the policy and clearing eight men for deportation.

  6. Judge Murphy issues preliminary injunction

    Legal

    The district judge temporarily blocked the policy, saying immigrants must have a chance to contest their destination.

  7. 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.

Scenarios

1

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.

2

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.

3

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.

Sources

(5)
The Spokesman-Review (AP) New England News Collaborative Associated Press Courthouse News Service Universal Hub

More from Boston, MA

Openings, permits and council decisions in Boston, MA, in your inbox every Monday.