Arya News - US judges affirm migrants must have opportunities to voice safety concerns before deportation to unfamiliar nations.
A US federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own – a ruling that could next go before the Supreme Court.
On Friday, a three-judge panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston largely upheld a February decision that found the Department of Homeland Security’s so-called third-country removal policy unlawful.
Recommended Stories
list of 3 items list 1 of 3 Why are election officials in the US preparing for chaos before midterms? list 2 of 3 US judge blocks Trump’s latest effort to limit birthright citizenship list 3 of 3 Trump administration proposes excluding certain immigrants from US census end of list The case stems from a class-action lawsuit testing what due process migrants are owed before being sent to nations with which they have no ties.
Writing for the panel, US Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said migrants must be given a “meaningful” chance to raise safety concerns before removal, rejecting the Trump administration’s narrower reading of the law.
The court did overturn part of the ruling on procedural grounds, concerning whether officials must first try deporting migrants to countries they have ties to.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the decision confirmed 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”.
The DHS did not immediately comment. The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling.
Under Trump, the US has struck agreements allowing it to send more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, most often Mexico, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by the rights groups Refugees International and Human Rights First.
The policy, adopted in March 2025, allowed removals with only minimal notice if officials had diplomatic assurances against persecution.
The controversial programme has reached the Supreme Court twice.
In 2025, the justices cleared the way for eight men, including nationals of Cuba, Myanmar and Vietnam, to be deported to South Sudan , a country the US State Department advises against visiting because of “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”.
The DHS called the removals “a win”, while rights groups said they flouted basic protections.
The Trump administration’s immigration agenda has faced a string of setbacks this month.
A federal judge blocked planned caps on student and journalist visas, calling the government’s justification “exceptionally weak”, while a coalition of 22 states and Washington, DC, sued to stop a separate rule that would let officials deny green cards to immigrants who lawfully use public benefits.