Toggle Daily
A federal appeals court rules third country deportations unlawful
September 19, 2026
A unanimous three judge panel of the First Circuit ruled Friday that the Department of Homeland Security policy of swift deportation to third countries is unlawful.
Immigrants with final removal orders are often protected by federal law from return to their home countries, and the administration has used removals to third countries as a central part of its deportation campaign.
Key facts
- In Boston, US District Judge Brian Murphy blocked removals unless immigrants were given a “meaningful” chance to object, and in April 2025 he entered a preliminary injunction halting the deportation flights.
- Public records show that DHS has moved upward of 25,000 migrants into third countries, largely across Latin America and Africa, since Trump returned to office last year.
- Jennifer Mascott, named to the bench during Trump’s second term, backed ICE while sitting on the 3rd Circuit and had clerked for Kavanaugh years earlier.
- Legal specialists expect the government to take the case to the Supreme Court and ask that the 1st Circuit ruling be put on hold so DHS can keep sending migrants to third countries.
ABC News reports that three judges of the First Circuit, ruling without dissent, threw out the Homeland Security policy under which immigrants were moved to countries other than their own, often on very short notice, once the government invoked diplomatic assurances that the receiving state would treat them well. The Washington Post reports the same holding in its own terms and adds the scale: public records put the number of migrants sent to third countries since Trump took office last year above 25,000, most of them to Latin America and Africa. The New York Times ties the ruling to new limits on the administration's deportation push. On the substance the three accounts agree, and Friday's ruling lets a migrant contest a removal to a country that is not his place of origin.
The Washington Post traces how the fight reached this point. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston blocked removals without a meaningful chance to challenge them and enjoined the flights in April 2025; the Supreme Court's conservative majority then paused his order in a short, unsigned statement giving no reasons, and the flights resumed. The Washington Post also reports the panel's doubt that any receiving country can promise across the board that nobody removed to it will be persecuted or tortured, absent real protection against rogue agents. Administration officials, the same account carries, defend third country removals as the one way to remove people convicted of rapes and murders whom no home country will take back.
Politico reports a second front, the administration's position that anyone living in the US without permission is seeking admission and therefore subject to mandatory detention without a bond hearing. By that account lower court judges have rejected the position at scale, and the administration lost in nine of 11 regional circuits. Steve Vladeck of Georgetown told Politico the district courts refuse it more steeply because those judges “are more attuned to the human impact on the ground than appellate judges.” Eric Wessan, Iowa's top litigator, told Politico the appellate split runs the other way among the judges he reads as proxies for Justice Barrett and Justice Kavanaugh. Friday's holding, its reach, and the record of lower court losses are corroborated across the outlets. The Supreme Court's own answer is not.
He said: “The 9-2 split is further proof of how novel the government’s extraordinary policy is,”
Laken Riley Act
Still developing
A Supreme Court appeal by the administration is likely, legal experts said, and so is a stay.
How settled the reporting is
Sources
- abcnews.com — Appeals court rejects swift deportation of immigrants to third countries
- Politico — ICE’s mass detention has been routed in court. The Supreme Court could reverse the tide.
- The Washington Post — Appeals court says Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy is unlawful
Toggle read the full reports of 3 of the 4 outlets counted on this event. The other 1 are counted from their headlines and opening sentences.