A federal appeals court on Friday mostly upheld a lower district court’s ruling that blocked a Trump administration policy of swiftly deporting illegal immigrants to so-called third countries, or nations to which they have no connection.
In a unanimous decision from a three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals, the ruling raised concerns about “blanket assurances” from third countries that promise U.S. deportees won’t be tortured or persecuted, saying this promise is not sufficient and does not properly allow foreign nationals to raise persecution or torture concerns.
“We have some difficulty seeing how a receiving country can credibly provide blanket assurances that all removed noncitizens will not be persecuted or tortured there unless it intends to provide them with some sort of affirmative protection against rogue agents and non-state actors,” Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote for the majority.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, adopted in March 2025, allowed immigration officials to deport foreign nationals in as little as six hours.
Plaintiffs, who are four foreign nationals, argued the DHS policy of deporting them to third countries not in their final removal orders without early enough notice and opportunity to claim reasonable fear of persecution or torture was unlawful.
“The Guidance conflicts with the statutory and regulatory provisions governing fear-of-torture claims insofar as it authorizes third-country removals without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to assert such claims in connection with such removals,” Aframe wrote. “The Guidance is therefore unlawful.”
The Trump administration had already won, twice, favorable decisions from the Supreme Court regarding the policy.
Judge Brian Murphy of the District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted a preliminary injunction on April 18 for illegal immigrants who had sued to block their deportation to a third country. He ruled that the policy failed to afford due process rights to the illegal immigrants.
Aframe called Murphy’s reasoning a “sensible” interpretation of immigration law.
The Trump administration filed an emergency application to the high court in response to Murphy’s block, arguing there is a “crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part because many aliens most deserving of removal are often the hardest to remove.”
“Convincing third countries to accept some of the most undesirable aliens requires sensitive diplomacy, which involves negotiation and the balancing of other foreign-policy interests,” the emergency application stated.
Supreme Court justices temporarily lifted Murphy’s block in a 6–3 ruling, pending the appeal of the First Circuit, which has now upheld the lower court’s ruling.
The case, known as D.V.D. v. Homeland Security, is likely to head back to the Supreme Court.
The DHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Reuters contributed to this report.
We had a problem loading this article. Please enable javascript or use a different browser. If the issue persists, please visit our help center.