-
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled Friday that DHS cannot send migrants to countries where they have no ties without first giving them real notice and a chance to object.
- The decision largely upholds a February 2026 judgment from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, though the panel dropped one piece of his order on procedural grounds.
-
DHS insists the policy remains active because the ruling hasn't taken legal effect yet, setting up what would be the case's third stop at the Supreme Court.
What the Boston Panel Actually Decided
Three judges on the Boston-based First Circuit sided Friday, September 18, with migrants challenging one of the Trump administration's most aggressive removal tactics: shipping people with final deportation orders to countries they've never lived in, sometimes with only hours of warning. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote the 55-page opinion, joined by Judges Lara Montecalvo and Jeffrey Howard, largely affirming what U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found back in February: the government's "third-country removal" guidance conflicts with migrants' statutory right to raise fears of torture or persecution before being put on a plane.
The panel's reasoning centered on a basic problem — a person cannot meaningfully contest being sent somewhere if nobody tells them where they're going. In the court's own opinion, the judges wrote that immigration officials must give detainees a genuine chance to contest removal to any nation where they have no connection, rejecting the government's position that generic diplomatic promises could substitute for individual notice.
A Partial Win for DHS, on a Technicality
The ruling was not a clean sweep for the challengers. Judges threw out one section of Murphy's original order — the requirement that DHS first try deporting someone to their home country or an already-designated destination before considering a third country. That piece failed not because the underlying argument was wrong, but because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing to bring that specific claim. In practical terms, third-country removals themselves remain legal; the government simply cannot skip the notice step.
Why This Reaches Far Beyond New England
The First Circuit's authority technically covers only Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico. But the underlying lawsuit is a nationwide class action aimed at a single, uniform DHS policy — not a regional practice — so the injunction's reach extends to every state where third-country flights currently operate, not just New England.
The scale here is genuinely large, and different trackers describe different slices of it. Independent monitoring from the advocacy coalition Third Country Deportation Watch counts more than 25,000 people removed to third countries since President Trump's second term began, spread across at least 29 nations that have actually taken deportees — with roughly 20,000 of that total sent to Mexico alone. A separate figure circulating in coverage of Friday's ruling, 35 countries, refers to something different: the total number of formal agreements DHS has signed, a tally that includes deals with nations like Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone that only recently came online. In short, roughly 29 to 30 countries have already received flights, while 35 have signed on in some capacity — a gap that reflects agreements still ramping up rather than a factual dispute between outlets.
Why "Blanket Assurances" Didn't Satisfy the Court
DHS's central defense was that receiving countries had offered broad diplomatic assurances against torturing or persecuting arrivals, and that these blanket promises justified skipping case-by-case notice. The panel wasn't persuaded. Judges pointed to the risk of what's known as chain refoulement — cases where a receiving nation quietly forwards a deportee onward to the very country the U.S. had barred as unsafe. The opinion itself cites a Guatemalan plaintiff who was deported to Mexico, only for Mexican authorities to send him onward to Guatemala — the exact outcome his original removal order was meant to prevent.
The department wasted no time signaling it would not back down. DHS General Counsel James Percival posted on social media that removals would continue because the appellate decision "is not currently in effect," adding bluntly that DHS retains the right to send someone elsewhere once they raise a fear claim about their home country. That statement points toward an appeal, though DHS has not formally confirmed as of this writing that it will seek Supreme Court review.
The Supreme Court's Shadow Over the Case
This isn't the justices' first encounter with this fight. In June 2025, the Supreme Court voted 6-3 in an unsigned order to lift Judge Murphy's original injunction, letting deportations resume without explaining its reasoning. Days later, after Murphy tried to block a flight of migrants bound for South Sudan on separate grounds, the high court overruled him again, 7-2. Justice Elena Kagan, who had dissented from the first order, joined that second rebuke, writing that she did not see how a district court could compel compliance with an order the justices had already paused. A third round before the Supreme Court, this time on the underlying legal question rather than an emergency stay, now looks likely.
What Happens Next
For now, nothing changes on the ground: DHS says it will keep operating under existing procedures until a higher court says otherwise. Attorneys representing the certified class, including counsel from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, argue Friday's ruling closes a loophole the government has used to sidestep anti-torture protections simply by changing a person's destination country. Whether that argument survives will likely hinge on how the Supreme Court — which has already shown a willingness to grant the administration emergency relief — eventually rules on the merits rather than on procedure.
