A three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a previous decision invalidating the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy. The court found that migrants must receive meaningful opportunities to raise safety concerns before being deported to nations where they have no connections.
The lawsuit challenged whether migrants receive adequate due process protections before being sent to third countries. Judge Seth Aframe, writing for the panel, rejected the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law and determined that broader protections against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented through such removals. The court did overturn one procedural aspect of the earlier ruling regarding whether officials must first attempt deportation to countries with which migrants have ties.
According to Third Country Deportation Watch, the US has negotiated agreements enabling it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries under this policy, which was adopted in March 2025. The removals operate with minimal notice when officials obtain diplomatic assurances against persecution. The Supreme Court has previously addressed this issue twice, including in 2025 when justices permitted eight men from Cuba, Myanmar, and Vietnam to be deported to South Sudan, despite State Department warnings about crime and armed conflict there.
The Trump administration indicated it would appeal the ruling. This decision represents one of several recent legal setbacks for the administration’s immigration initiatives, including blocked restrictions on student and journalist visas and a lawsuit by 22 states challenging rules that would deny green cards to immigrants using lawful public benefits.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI