Trump administration to seek Supreme Court relief after court blocks third-country deportation policy

Attorney General Todd Blanche said Sept. 24 that the Trump administration would ask the Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court invalidated its current policy for deporting illegal immigrants to third countries that are different from their country of origin. 

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit lifted a stay Sept. 23 that had allowed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to continue removals under the policy while the court considered its appeal. The order put a Sept. 18 ruling into effect that found the DHS could not deport migrants to countries not named in their removal orders without first giving them a “meaningful opportunity” to argue they could face persecution or torture there.

“Without even allowing the government a chance to respond, and in the dark of night, a federal appeals court blocked us from conducting all third-country removals of illegal aliens, an entirely legal and invaluable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration,” Blanche wrote on X. “We will immediately seek relief from the Supreme Court, which previously granted a stay in this very same case.”

DHS adopted the policy in March 2025, allowing officials to send migrants with final deportation orders to countries not identified in their removal proceedings without further proceedings if those countries assured the U.S. the migrants would not be persecuted or tortured.

In its Sept. 18 decision, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit upheld a lower court’s requirements for notice and an opportunity to raise safety concerns. It also upheld the lower court’s decision to set aside DHS’s policy guidance.

“An individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Seth Aframe, a Biden nominee, wrote for the panel.

The Washington Examiner reported that the decision does not hold that third-country deportations are “categorically unlawful,” but instead rejects the DHS’s “rapid-removal process.”

Jessica M. Vaughan, director of policy studies at the Center for Immigration Studies, told Zeale News in a statement that the ruling could make third-country deportations slower and harder to arrange, particularly when an illegal immigrant's home country refuses to accept them.

"The United States will continue to be stuck with illegal aliens whose countries refuse to take them back, meaning that these illegal aliens will face little in the way of consequences for coming here illegally — even if they are criminals," Vaughan said.

She predicted that the ruling would force Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to "anticipate that a country will not accept its citizens back and name the proposed country of removal in advance."

"This is problematic, because ICE sometimes has to negotiate for specific aliens to be removed to third countries, and agreements with other countries may not be known at the beginning of the proceedings," she explained. "Typically, ICE would seek such arrangements after attempts to send the person back to their home country have failed.  That won't work anymore."

She added that while ICE may be able to arrange some third-country removals, "there will be fewer opportunities, and it will be much more cumbersome and time consuming." The added steps, Vaughan argued, could increase costs and delay deportations, including for illegal immigrants with criminal records.

"It's not an exaggeration to say that this amounts to an erosion of sovereignty," Vaughan said, "because it will enable illegal aliens and foreign governments to dictate who can be deported."

The Sept. 23 order followed a dispute over whether DHS could continue removals before the appeals court issued its formal mandate. Immigration officials sought to proceed with at least one removal involving a Peruvian migrant whom they proposed sending to Ghana or another third country, according to Fox News. The First Circuit’s order made clear that its earlier stay no longer applied. 

The Supreme Court has already intervened twice in the dispute. In June 2025, it paused the injunction while the First Circuit considered the administration’s appeal. It later granted the administration’s request to allow the deportation of eight men to South Sudan.

In a social media post Sept. 23, DHS General Counsel James Percival defended third-country removals as an “essential public safety tool.” He said officials use them when a migrant’s country of origin will not accept the person, when the person cannot return there, or when logistical problems prevent removal to that country.

“The Left wants you to believe that removing aliens to countries other than their home country is cruel,” he added in a Sept. 24 X post. “What is cruel is allowing criminal illegals who can’t be sent home to stay in our communities and victimize anew.”