In a significant blow to the immigration policies of the Trump administration, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston unanimously rejected a contentious policy that allowed the deportation of migrants to countries with which they have no ties, without prior notice or the opportunity to contest their removal.
The detailed 55-page ruling upholds a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy from Massachusetts, who declared the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy illegal in February 2026.
Judge Seth Aframe, appointed by President Biden, authored the unanimous opinion, which was joined by Judge Lara Montecalvo, also a Biden appointee, and Judge Jeffrey Howard, appointed by George W. Bush.
"An individual's right to contest their deportation to a country where they fear persecution is meaningless without prior notice of the intended deportation destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination," Aframe stated in the decision.
The decision emphasized that the DHS must provide migrants a genuine opportunity to contest their deportation to a third country by asserting a reasonable fear of persecution or torture there.
Legal and Regulatory Conflicts
The court also dismissed the DHS's argument that general assurances from receiving countries were sufficient to ensure that deportees would not face torture or persecution, without the need for individualized notifications.
"The law and regulations prescribe hearing procedures for persecution claims with no exceptions for deportations to third countries. We reject DHS's efforts to create such an exception out of thin air," Aframe added.
The policy was found to clash with legal and regulatory provisions governing persecution fear claims, as it authorized deportations to third countries without effective notification and a meaningful chance to present those claims. Therefore, the policy was deemed illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Impact on Migrants
Under the Trump administration's aggressive deportation agenda, the policy allowed for the expulsion of migrants with as little as six hours' notice, preventing them from asserting fears of persecution or torture in their destination countries—a practice seldom used by previous administrations.
The Third Country Deportation Watch project, involving Refugees International and Human Rights First, reports that more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to at least 29 third countries since this policy's enactment.
This policy has disproportionately affected Cubans, many of whom have been deported to African nations like Eswatini, the Central African Republic, and Liberia, where they face precarious conditions, isolation, and lack of documentation.
Cuba, historically resistant to accepting deportees from the U.S., has seen its citizens redirected to third countries under this policy.
Legal Challenges and Future Outlook
Trina Realmuto, a spokesperson for the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which spearheaded the lawsuit, praised the court's decision.
"For over a year, class members lived under the threat of being sent to countries they were never informed they could be deported to, with little or no notice and without a meaningful opportunity to explain the dangers they faced there. Many have been deported to dire and dangerous situations under this policy," she stated.
While the court upheld most of Murphy's ruling, it trimmed one aspect regarding the order of preference for destination countries, noting that none of the primary plaintiffs claimed the DHS ignored their requests on this issue, making it an inappropriate forum to resolve that matter.
The legal journey of this case is extensive. An initial injunction by Judge Murphy was stayed by the Supreme Court in June 2025, allowing the government to resume deportations in a 6-3 decision. Murphy's substantive ruling in February 2026 was subsequently stayed by the First Circuit in March as the appeal progressed. This recent decision marks the appeals court's substantive ruling.
The DHS and the Department of Justice have yet to comment on the ruling. The case is likely headed to the Supreme Court for a third time, potentially concluding a lengthy legal battle shaping the Trump administration's immigration policy.
This ruling is part of a broader series of legal challenges surrounding the Trump administration's immigration policies. Stay updated on deportations, court cases, and migrants' rights in our U.S. Immigration section.
Key Questions on U.S. Deportation Policies
What was the main issue with Trump's deportation policy?
The policy allowed for the deportation of migrants to countries with which they had no ties, without prior notice or the opportunity to contest their removal, which was deemed illegal under the Administrative Procedure Act.
How did the First Circuit Court rule on the issue?
The First Circuit Court unanimously rejected the policy, affirming that migrants must be given notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest their deportation to a third country.
Which countries have received deported migrants under this policy?
Migrants have been deported to at least 29 countries, including Eswatini, the Central African Republic, and Liberia, often facing difficult conditions upon arrival.