Appeals court strikes down Trump administration’s ‘third-country’ deportation rule

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston on September 19 threw out a signature plank of the Trump administration’s enforcement agenda that allowed migrants to be removed to countries where they have no legal, cultural or family ties. The panel held that the Department of Homeland Security violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act and constitutional due-process guarantees by giving non-citizens only cursory notice and no meaningful chance to raise fear-based claims before being placed on flights to unfamiliar destinations. Friday’s decision arises from a 2025 class-action lawsuit filed by asylum-seekers who were sent—or threatened with being sent—to as many as 29 nations under secret bilateral “assurance” agreements. Plaintiffs included Cubans, Burmese and Vietnamese nationals deported to South Sudan, where the U.S. State Department itself warns of armed conflict and kidnapping risks. Writing for the court, Judge Seth Aframe said DHS must at minimum provide each migrant “a real opportunity to be heard on safety concerns” before removal. The ruling immediately grounds third-country deportation flights and restores the long-standing principle that the U.S. may only expel migrants to nations where they will not face persecution or torture. Immigration lawyers hailed the outcome as a rare systemic victory, noting that similar due-process claims often succeed only case-by-case. The government has 90 days to petition the Supreme Court; the Justice Department signaled it is “reviewing options.” For global-mobility managers, the decision reduces short-term risk that employees or family members awaiting immigration hearings could be whisked away to a third country on short notice. Companies with large frontline or seasonal foreign workforces—particularly those whose staff travel frequently between the United States and Mexico or Central America—should revisit contingency plans and legal-support budgets. If the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the ruling, DHS may be forced to divert enforcement resources back to traditional removal channels, lengthening processing times but offering more procedural certainty for employers.