1st Circuit Keeps Court Review in Third-Country Removal Process Against Homeland Security

(UNITED STATES) — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to keep deporting migrants with final removal orders to countries other than their own while a legal fight over the policy continues.

The March 16, 2026, decision, issued by a 2-1 panel, paused U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s February 25, 2026, ruling that had blocked the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal process. That appellate stay did not decide whether the policy is lawful, but it immediately let the administration continue using it as the case moves forward.

At the center of the dispute is a March 2025 DHS policy that permits deportations to third countries willing to accept migrants who already have final removal orders. Those removals can proceed on the basis of diplomatic assurances against persecution and, in some cases, with as little as 6 hours’ notice.

That made the 1st Circuit’s action important beyond procedure. Without the stay, Murphy’s order had been set to take effect Thursday, sharply limiting how the administration could carry out third-country removals while the lawsuit continued.

Murphy, a Biden appointee serving in the District of Massachusetts, ruled in an 81-page decision that the policy was likely unlawful because it violated due process under the U.S. Constitution. His order did not bar all removals, but it would have required the government to follow a more structured sequence before sending migrants to a third country.

First, Murphy said officials had to try to remove migrants to their home country or to a country previously designated by an immigration judge. If the government then sought to send someone to a different country, his ruling required meaningful notice and a “reasonable fear” interview before that third-country removal could go ahead.

Murphy also built in a 15-day pause to allow the administration to appeal. That temporary hold set the stage for the emergency fight that reached the 1st Circuit this week.

The appeals court’s ruling temporarily revives the process exactly because a stay preserves the administration’s ability to act under the March 2025 policy while judges consider the underlying legal issues. In practical terms, the order restored the government’s ability to continue deportations to third countries identified in the litigation, including South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Ghana, Rwanda, and Eswatini.

Trump administration lawyers had asked for emergency relief on the ground that Murphy’s order created an “unworkable scheme.” They also argued the ruling risked “thousands” of deportations and conflicted with two prior Supreme Court emergency stays.

That argument mattered because the administration framed Murphy’s requirements not as modest procedural safeguards, but as a judicial restriction that would disrupt active removal operations. By winning the stay, officials secured the narrow relief they needed to keep the third-country removal process running while they press their broader defense of the policy.

Still, the appellate ruling has limits. The 1st Circuit did not issue a final endorsement of the administration’s position, and it did not resolve whether the Department of Homeland Security can permanently operate the program without the protections Murphy ordered.

The lawsuit itself is a class action challenging deportations carried out without adequate due process notice. The core claim is not simply that migrants were removed, but that they were removed to countries not originally designated for them without enough warning or a meaningful chance to raise fear-based objections.

That due process question has already produced one of the case’s most closely watched episodes. In May 2025, Murphy accused the administration of non-compliance after six migrants were sent to South Sudan.

Murphy acknowledged those migrants’ criminal histories while insisting that the Constitution still applied. “But that does not change due process,” he said.

That line has become a concise statement of the lower court’s view of the dispute. For Murphy, the legal issue is whether the government can move people to third countries without the notice and screening steps he ordered, even when officials believe removal should proceed quickly.

For the administration, the dispute is tied to flexibility and speed in carrying out deportations once a final order already exists. Its emergency appeal made that point by warning that Murphy’s order would impose a process federal lawyers described as difficult to administer and inconsistent with prior high court intervention.

The broader history of the case suggests that the Supreme Court is likely to be involved again. Prior emergency actions by the high court favored the administration, and the latest 1st Circuit stay keeps the policy in place while the courts move toward a fuller review on the merits.

That path matters because emergency rulings and stays answer only what happens for now. They do not settle the final legality of the policy, even though they can determine whether deportations continue in the meantime.

The immediate operational effect is clear. Migrants with final removal orders remain exposed to transfer to third countries that agree to accept them, under the March 2025 policy, while the administration continues to defend its approach.

The countries cited in the litigation show the reach of the policy. South Sudan has drawn particular attention because of the May 2025 removals, but the list at issue also includes El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Ghana, Rwanda, and Eswatini.

The case has also raised questions about cost. A report by Senate Democrats said the government spent over $32 million to deport about 300 people to third countries.

That spending figure has become part of the wider political and legal debate around the policy. Critics point to due process concerns and the expense of the operations, while the administration has argued that it needs the authority to carry out removals efficiently when home-country returns are not available.

Attorney General Pam Bondi cast the 1st Circuit result as a victory for President Trump’s broader agenda. “There is more work ahead on this important issue, but this is a key win for POTUS’ immigration agenda. The Justice Department attorneys will continue fighting tirelessly to advance and protect President Trump’s policies in court.”

Bondi’s statement captured both the administration’s confidence and the narrowness of what it won. The government prevailed on a stay, not on the full merits of the case.

That distinction is central to what has changed and what has not. The stay means the administration can continue using the third-country removal process for now. It does not erase the lower court’s due process concerns, and it does not end judicial review of deportation protections.

No executive action has been reported that would eliminate court oversight of protections such as withholding of removal under INA § 241(b)(3). The legal framework governing those protections therefore remains in place even as the administration presses for broader room to conduct third-country removals.

For migrants facing possible transfer, the difference between those two points is substantial. The administration has regained operational authority for the moment, but the underlying challenge to how that authority is exercised remains active.

For the courts, the dispute now presents a familiar immigration-law pattern: emergency relief first, fuller review later. Murphy’s February ruling laid out a due process model that would require initial efforts to remove migrants to their home country or a judge-designated country, followed by meaningful notice and a reasonable fear interview before any third-country removal. The 1st Circuit has now put that model on hold.

What comes next will determine whether those procedural safeguards become mandatory or whether the administration can keep relying on diplomatic assurances and short-notice removals under the March 2025 policy. Because prior Supreme Court emergency interventions favored the administration, the case is widely expected to return there for fuller review.

Until then, the Trump administration has what it sought most urgently: room to keep the policy in operation. The migrants covered by the class action, however, remain at the center of an unresolved constitutional fight over how much process the government must provide before sending them to countries that are not their own.