US Appeals Court Requires Due Process for Third-Country Deportations

A federal appeals court has dealt another blow to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement strategy, ruling that migrants cannot be rapidly deported to countries where they have no ties without first being given a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns.

On Friday, the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston upheld a February decision that found the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy unlawful. The three-judge panel largely sided with migrants challenging the practice in a class-action lawsuit that tests what due process protections people owe before being sent abroad.

US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote that migrants must receive a “meaningful” chance to voice their concerns before removal, explicitly rejecting the Trump administration’s narrower interpretation of the law. While the court did overturn part of the original ruling on procedural grounds about whether officials must first attempt deportations to countries where migrants have existing connections, the core principle remained intact.

A Policy With Global Reach

Under Trump, the US has struck agreements allowing it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, predominantly Mexico. The controversial program, adopted in March 2025, dramatically streamlined the deportation process by allowing removals with minimal notice if officials possessed diplomatic assurances against persecution.

These assurances have proven questionable at best. In one stark example, the Supreme Court previously cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar, and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan. This is a country the US State Department actively advises against visiting due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”

The DHS called those removals “a win,” while rights groups argued they violated basic humanitarian protections. The stark disconnect between government claims and on-the-ground realities illustrates the stakes of this policy.

Legal Battles Mount

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, celebrated the ruling as confirmation that “due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings.”

This latest setback represents one of many recent defeats for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. A federal judge blocked planned caps on student and journalist visas, calling the government’s justification “exceptionally weak.” Additionally, a coalition of 22 states and Washington, DC, filed suit to stop a separate rule allowing officials to deny green cards to immigrants who lawfully use public benefits.

The Trump administration indicated it plans to appeal the third-country removal decision, setting the stage for potential Supreme Court involvement.

What This Means Going Forward

The ruling represents a significant constraint on executive power in immigration enforcement. By requiring meaningful due process before removal, courts are essentially saying that efficiency cannot trump fundamental fairness. Migrants must have genuine opportunities to present evidence about conditions in their proposed destination countries and explain why deportation there would endanger them.

This matters because third-country removals happen under the shadow of minimal scrutiny. Without mandatory due process hearings, individuals could be removed based on incomplete information or bureaucratic shortcuts. The courts have now said that cannot happen.

The policy’s future likely depends on Supreme Court action. The justices have already engaged with third-country removals twice, and given the controversial nature of immigration enforcement, another appeal seems probable.

What remains unclear is whether future court decisions will meaningfully constrain the administration’s ability to remove migrants, or whether procedural victories will ultimately prove hollow in practice.

Source: Original reporting on federal court decision regarding third-country deportation policy