Appeals court lets Trump’s third-country deportations proceed as Supreme Court fight looms
Key Takeaways
- The First Circuit paused a district court order that blocked the Trump administration’s “third-country” deportations, allowing the policy to continue for now.
- U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had ruled the Department of Homeland Security’s process violated due process and required notice and a “reasonable fear” interview before removal to a third country.
- Administration lawyers argued the injunction threatened diplomatic negotiations and “thousands” of planned removals; the Supreme Court previously let the policy proceed on an emergency basis.
- The dispute is widely expected to reach the Supreme Court for a full merits review.
- For migrants, this means third-country removals may resume during the appeal; raising fear-of-persecution claims promptly could trigger protection screenings.
What the appeals court decided
A federal appeals court granted the Trump administration’s request to stay a lower court ruling that would have halted deportations to “third countries” just hours before it was set to take effect. The First Circuit’s order keeps the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy in place during the appeal, delivering a near-term win for the administration as litigation continues. The administration has maintained that blocking the policy would disrupt sensitive negotiations with foreign governments and jeopardize “thousands” of removals, arguments the court found sufficient to preserve the status quo pending review.
The district court’s due process ruling
Last month, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, found DHS’s third-country removal process unlawful on constitutional due process grounds. Third-country removal refers to deporting a person to a nation other than their country of origin, a practice permitted under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) when that country agrees to accept the individual. Murphy held that DHS must first attempt removal to the person’s home country (or a country designated by an immigration judge), and only then pursue a third-country option after providing “meaningful notice” and an opportunity to raise fear of persecution in that country via a “reasonable fear” interview—a screening typically conducted by asylum officers to assess potential eligibility for protection such as withholding of removal or relief under the Convention Against Torture.
The broader legal and policy stakes
The administration contends DHS has clear statutory authority to remove certain noncitizens, including those with criminal convictions, to countries willing to accept them. Officials have emphasized public safety concerns, and a former assistant secretary has argued that without third-country removals, dangerous offenders could remain in the U.S. It has been reported that the Supreme Court previously issued emergency stays allowing the policy to continue while challenges proceed—signals that the justices may take up the case on the merits. Parallel litigation in other jurisdictions underscores the stakes and the unsettled legal landscape.
What this means for immigrants now
Practically, DHS and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may continue arranging removals to third countries while appeals play out. Migrants who are told they will be removed to a country other than their own should watch for written notice and raise any fear-of-persecution concerns immediately to seek a “reasonable fear” screening. Lawyers should monitor deadlines closely, preserve objections, and prepare for rapid policy shifts if the Supreme Court intervenes. Processing timelines may fluctuate, especially for those in detention, as the legal fight moves toward likely high court review.
Source: Original Article