- The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the block on rapid third-country deportations.
- Migrants must get notice of the destination and a real chance to contest removal for persecution or torture claims.
- The ruling rejects DHS’s special exception, as more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to at least 29 third countries.
A unanimous panel of the 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals on September 18, 2026, largely upheld an order blocking the Trump administration from rapidly deporting migrants to unfamiliar third countries without a meaningful chance to object. The case is D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212.
The decision keeps a lower-court ruling against the policy in place. Migrants must receive notice of the intended destination and an opportunity to raise claims that removal could expose them to persecution or torture.
Judge Seth Aframe wrote the opinion. Judges Lara Montecalvo and Jeffrey Howard joined him.
“An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination.”
The panel rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to create a special rule for third-country removals. Aframe wrote that existing procedures govern fear-based claims even when the destination is not the migrant’s home country.
“The statute and regulations prescribe hearing-related procedures for fear-of-persecution claims with no exception for third-country removals,” Aframe wrote. “We reject DHS's efforts to create such an exception from whole cloth.”
The ruling keeps a notice-and-hearing barrier in place
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, a Biden appointee, found the policy unlawful in February. He said it failed to protect migrants’ rights before sending them to countries they might not know and where they could face danger.
The appellate ruling preserves that protection. It requires meaningful notice and a real chance to challenge the proposed destination before removal.
The lower court had addressed short-notice removals. One version of its remedy required about 24 hours’ notice in some situations, while the policy allowed authorities to provide as little as six hours’ notice.
Those figures arose from the administration’s effort to move people quickly. The appellate panel did not accept speed as a reason to bypass the hearing-related procedures.
The decision does not prohibit every removal to a third country. It leaves DHS able to conduct such removals if officials follow the required notice and hearing procedures.
The policy reached countries outside migrants’ home-country systems
The administration adopted the policy in March 2025. It allowed authorities to send migrants to countries other than their own, including places where they had never lived and had no ties.
Officials relied on diplomatic assurances. Receiving countries could promise that deportees would not face persecution or torture.
Those assurances did not eliminate the need for an individual opportunity to object, the panel held. A government-wide promise could not replace notice about the particular destination or a chance to present a fear-based claim.
| Policy feature | What the record describes |
|---|---|
| Adoption | March 2025 |
| Notice allowed in some cases | As little as six hours |
| Lower-court remedy in some situations | About 24 hours’ notice |
| Destinations | Countries other than a migrant’s home country |
| Government justification | Diplomatic assurances against persecution or torture |
Data cited by Third Country Deportation Watch says the Trump administration has sent more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, including Mexico, under agreements implemented by Trump.
The figures place the lawsuit against a wider removal program. The ruling addresses the procedures used before those transfers, not only the identity of any one receiving country.
Three judges rejected the government’s proposed exception
The panel ruled unanimously. It had no dissent.
Aframe and Montecalvo are Biden appointees. Howard is a George W. Bush appointee. Their agreement focused on the statutory and regulatory procedures that apply when a migrant says a proposed destination is unsafe.
The judges’ reasoning centered on notice. A person cannot meaningfully contest removal to a country without first learning which country officials intend to use.
That concern extends to people who have never lived in the proposed destination. The litigation involves migrants facing transfer to places where they may fear persecution or torture, rather than return to their home countries.
The administration had argued that receiving-country assurances justified limited notice. The court rejected that approach as an exception that does not appear in the governing protections.
The decision came amid broader immigration enforcement litigation. In other cases, judges have found that the administration deported more than 170 people in violation of court orders, protections against torture and persecution, or procedural safeguards.
Those separate findings form part of the legal backdrop, but the appellate ruling here turns on advance notice and the chance to contest a third-country destination.
The administration is again positioned to ask the Supreme Court to intervene
The Trump administration previously sought emergency intervention from the U.S. Supreme Court in the same litigation. After the appellate ruling, the administration indicated it could return to the high court.
The dispute therefore moves forward with the central restriction intact: officials may not rapidly send migrants to a third country while withholding meaningful notice and an opportunity to challenge the destination.
The appellate ruling now stands as the latest decision in D.V.D., a case that began with Murphy’s February order and reached the Boston court on September 18, 2026.
