A federal appeals court struck down the Trump administration’s rapid third-country removal policy on Friday, ruling that noncitizens must have an opportunity to challenge deportation if they fear for their safety.
Why It Matters
The decision limits the executive branch’s ability to bypass standard asylum procedures by deporting immigrants to nations other than their countries of origin. It reinforces judicial oversight over Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement actions involving third-country transfers.
What Happened
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit largely upheld a February ruling by Boston federal judge Brian Murphy, which found the DHS policy unlawful. The three-judge panel—consisting of Lara E. Montecalvo, Jeffrey R. Howard, and Seth R. Aframe—determined that the administration failed to provide adequate notice to destination countries before executing removals.
The court noted that accepting nations could not “credibly provide blanket assurances that all removed noncitizens will not be persecuted or tortured there unless it intends to provide them with some sort of affirmative protection against rogue agents and non-state actors.” The panel found the policy provided no notice of impending removal when destination countries offered diplomatic assurances against persecution.
Immigration officers may still conduct third-country removals if they follow proper procedures, including providing adequate notice and allowing individuals to raise fear-based claims. Third-country removals involve deporting noncitizens to a nation other than their home country when the home country refuses repatriation. The procedure has increased under the second Trump administration through partnerships with several countries, some of which have documented human rights concerns.
By the Numbers
Friday — Date of the federal appeals court decision and DHS non-response to comment requests.
February — Month of Judge Brian Murphy’s ruling finding the policy unlawful.
Three-judge panel — Composition of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit panel.
24 hours — Duration of notice to a third country deemed inadequate by the panel.
May 2025 — Month the Trump administration made an emergency request to the Supreme Court.
June 2025 — Month the Supreme Court temporarily allowed removals before sending the case back to the lower court.
Zoom Out
The legal battle reflects ongoing tensions between executive immigration enforcement and judicial review of due process rights. The Trump administration previously sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court in May 2025 after Judge Murphy blocked the policy. The high court temporarily allowed removals in June 2025 before remanding the case to the lower court for further proceedings.
Judges Montecalvo and Aframe were nominated by former President Joe Biden, while Judge Howard was nominated by former President George W. Bush. The composition of the panel highlights the bipartisan nature of federal judicial appointments, though the ruling aligns with previous lower-court skepticism toward expedited removal procedures that bypass standard asylum screenings.
What’s Next
The Trump administration may appeal the First Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. DHS did not respond to requests for comment on Friday regarding the appeals court ruling or future enforcement strategies. Legal challenges to third-country removal policies are likely to continue as both sides argue over the balance between border security and procedural protections for noncitizens.