A US federal appeals court has ruled against the Trump administration’s policy of quickly deporting migrants to countries where they have no citizenship or established ties.
The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely upheld a lower court decision that had declared the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy unlawful. The case was brought as a class action challenging the procedures used when migrants are sent to countries other than their own.
Writing for a three-judge panel, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said migrants facing removal must be given a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture in the country where the US intends to send them.
The ruling rejected the administration’s narrower interpretation of the law, which had allowed authorities to carry out removals with limited notice where diplomatic assurances had been obtained from the receiving country. The appeals court, however, overturned part of the lower court’s decision that would have required US authorities to first attempt to deport migrants to countries with which they had established connections.
The policy was introduced in March 2025 as part of the administration’s broader immigration enforcement programme. It has allowed the US to arrange the transfer of migrants to countries other than their countries of origin when direct removal was not possible.
According to tracking cited in the case, more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to at least 29 third countries under agreements reached by the US government. Mexico has been among the destinations most frequently used.
The policy has generated legal challenges from migrant rights organisations, which argue that people should not be transferred to unfamiliar countries without sufficient notice and an opportunity to explain why the destination may expose them to danger.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs, said the ruling reinforced legal protections against sending migrants to countries where they could face persecution or torture. The Department of Homeland Security had not immediately commented on the decision.
The dispute could ultimately reach the US Supreme Court, which has already considered related litigation involving third-country deportations.
In 2025, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed with the removal of eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to South Sudan while the legal dispute continued. The US State Department had warned against travel to South Sudan because of security concerns including crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.
The administration has defended the third-country policy as an important immigration enforcement tool, particularly where migrants cannot be returned directly to their countries of origin. Friday’s decision leaves the policy in place but requires the government to provide migrants with greater procedural protection before transferring them to third countries.
The ruling is the latest legal setback facing the Trump administration’s immigration programme, which has also encountered challenges to other policies concerning visas and immigration benefits.
