A Federal Appeals Court Ruled That DHS Cannot Put a Migrant on a Plane to a Country He Was Never Told About. The Unanimous First Circuit Said the Right to Fear Persecution 'Means Little' Without Notice. More Than 25,000 People Have Already Been Sent to at Least 29 Third Countries, and DHS Says It Isn't Stopping.

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled Friday that the Trump administration's practice of deporting migrants to countries they have no connection to, often with only hours of warning, violates federal law. A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld a February decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, finding that the Department of Homeland Security must give people "a meaningful opportunity to contest" removal to a so-called third country before sending them there.

"An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution means little if one does not receive prior notice" of where he is being sent, the court wrote. Judge Seth Aframe, writing for the panel, said the department's position "would deny access to that protection to a substantial swath of noncitizens who are sent to third countries with no notice of their destination," and called Murphy's reading of the statutes "sensible." The court found the policy conflicts with the Administrative Procedure Act and with the laws Congress passed to protect people from being returned to persecution or torture.

The policy at issue dates to March 2025, when DHS told immigration officers they could remove migrants with final deportation orders to countries other than their own as long as the receiving government offered blanket diplomatic assurances that the deportees would not be persecuted or tortured. In practice, the notice given was often minimal. The class-action case, known as D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, was brought on behalf of migrants who had won protection in immigration court against being returned to their home countries, only to be told they would be flown somewhere else entirely.

The scale of the program has grown far beyond the handful of cases that first drew attention. According to Third Country Deportation Watch, a tracker run by Refugees International and Human Rights First, the administration has sent more than 25,000 people to at least 29 third countries. Roughly 80 percent went to Mexico, but the list also includes Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic and South Sudan. A recent flight to Liberia carried citizens of Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela. DHS says it has struck agreements with more than 30 governments.

The case has already been to the Supreme Court twice. In 2025 the justices lifted Murphy's preliminary injunctions, clearing the way for at least eight men to be deported to South Sudan after weeks in limbo at a U.S. base in Djibouti. Friday's ruling addresses the merits of the policy rather than an emergency stay, and both sides expect it to return to the high court.

The administration did not win nothing. The panel reversed one part of Murphy's order on procedural grounds, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing to demand that the government first try to deport migrants to countries where they have ties before turning to a third country.

DHS made clear it does not intend to change course yet. "If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere," general counsel James Percival said, adding that the policy remains active because the appeals court's decision has not taken effect. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and a lawyer for the migrants, called the ruling a confirmation "that due process and the protections Congress enacted against persecution and torture cannot be circumvented by putting someone on a plane to a country that was never part of their removal proceedings." She noted that "for over a year, many class members have been deported to countries they had never been told they could be removed to."