A federal appeals court just handed the Trump administration a major setback in its effort to move deportees quickly to countries where they have no prior ties.

The unanimous ruling does not erase anyone’s final removal order. It does, however, force the Department of Homeland Security to give covered deportees effective notice of their destination and a meaningful chance to raise fears of persecution or torture before the flight leaves.

That means another layer of process, another opening for litigation, and another delay in an immigration system already built to move at the speed of cold molasses.

CBS News summarized the practical effect of the First Circuit’s decision:

The case, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, centers on policies DHS issued in 2025 for “third-country removals.” Those removals send a person with a final order somewhere other than the country named in earlier proceedings or the person’s country of citizenship.

ADVERTISEMENT

The First Circuit’s 55-page opinion largely upheld a lower-court ruling that set the DHS guidance aside. The panel concluded that existing law requires effective notice of the intended destination and a meaningful opportunity to present a country-specific fear claim.

The judges focused on two protections: withholding removal when a person would likely face persecution, and the federal rules implementing America’s obligation not to send someone to a place where the person would likely be tortured.

DHS had argued that diplomatic assurances from receiving governments could support a streamlined process. The court rejected the idea that blanket assurances could replace the individualized procedures required by existing statutes and regulations.

The court also said notice of roughly 24 hours or less can be inadequate when it leaves no realistic opportunity to challenge the destination.

An immigration lawyer’s breakdown captured the ruling’s hard line: the government may have a final removal order, but a new destination triggers a new question about persecution or torture in that specific country.

For the administration, that is the painful part. A third-country agreement is useful precisely because a person’s home country may refuse to cooperate, may be unsafe, or may be legally unavailable as a destination.

If every proposed destination creates a fresh procedural fight, activists and immigration lawyers gain another point at which to slow the removal. A process designed to solve diplomatic dead ends can become one more maze.

But the court did leave the administration one important opening.

Bloomberg Law reports that the panel vacated the lower court’s separate requirement that DHS first try to remove a class member to a previously designated country or a country of citizenship before turning to a third country.

ADVERTISEMENT

In plain English, the administration does not necessarily have to march through a court-imposed list of preferred destinations first. It can still use third-country arrangements, but it must build a process that supplies real notice and a meaningful opportunity to present a fear claim.

That distinction makes this a serious setback, not a total shutdown.

DHS had not posted a direct public response to the ruling as of Sunday morning. Its broader enforcement posture, however, remained unmistakable.

In a separate message Saturday, the department warned that noncitizens who illegally vote in American elections could face arrest and deportation.

President Trump now faces a familiar choice: appeal again, rewrite the policy, or pursue both tracks at once.

The cleanest path may be a fast, tightly controlled procedure that satisfies the ruling without turning every removal into months of litigation.

Give notice of the destination and set a short but real deadline. Hear the country-specific claim and make a decision.

Then execute the final order.

Congress could also clarify the process, although betting on Congress to repair a broken immigration system has disappointed Americans for decades.

ADVERTISEMENT

The administration’s goal remains legitimate and necessary. A final removal order cannot become a lifetime ticket to remain in the United States simply because the original destination is unavailable.

At the same time, sending someone to a country where that person may be tortured is a grave act, and the government must be able to show that it followed the law before the plane takes off.

The First Circuit has now drawn that line. President Trump’s team will have to work around it, appeal it, or persuade Congress to redraw it—but the third-country strategy is still alive.

 

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.