Appeals Court Rejects Trump Admin’s Bid to Fast-Track Deportations to Third Countries

A district court had found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the policy violated their constitutional right to due process.

A U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent watches as illegal immigrants are loaded onto an aircraft at Tucson International Airport in Tucson, Ariz., on Jan. 23, 2025. Senior Airman Devlin Bishop/DOD

A federal appeals court has denied the Trump administration’s request to lift a temporary restraining order blocking the government from fast-tracking the deportation of illegal immigrants with final removal orders to new countries without first giving such individuals a chance to raise claims that they would face persecution or torture if sent there.

In an April 7 order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the Department of Justice’s emergency motion to stay a nationwide order issued on March 28 by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy restricting the Trump administration from deporting foreigners to third countries not previously identified in their immigration proceedings. The district court had found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in proving that the policy violated their constitutional right to due process.

The First Circuit declined to intervene, noting that Murphy’s temporary restraining order is narrowly limited in duration and subject to quick review through an upcoming preliminary injunction hearing. The appeals court also raised questions about its jurisdiction at this stage, noting that temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable unless they result in significant, irreversible consequences.

The case was brought by four illegal immigrants from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, and Guatemala, who allege that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has adopted a policy encouraging officials to re-detain individuals previously released from custody and deport them to third countries—nations not designated during their original immigration proceedings—without proper notice or a chance to assert fear-based claims. The plaintiffs are pursuing class certification and a broader injunction against what they describe as a dangerous and unlawful practice.

In his March 28 ruling, Murphy concluded that the government must provide individuals with written notice and a meaningful opportunity to apply for protection under U.S. law, including the Convention Against Torture, before deporting them to third countries with which they have no established ties.

The Justice Department, in its emergency motion, argued that the court had exceeded its authority by imposing new procedural obligations on the executive branch and interfering with the administration’s statutory authority to carry out removals.

“The district court has usurped core executive powers and imposed tremendous practical effects on the President’s authority to manage foreign affairs, including with allies who may wish to accept aliens who are not citizens,” DOJ attorneys wrote.

The DOJ also pointed to a new directive issued by DHS in response to the district court’s ruling. That guidance requires that any country receiving a deportee under such circumstances provide diplomatic assurances that the individual will not be persecuted or tortured. DOJ attorneys maintained that, beyond this guidance, illegal immigrants may also raise protection claims through existing administrative channels, such as filing a motion to reopen with DHS, immigration courts, or the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“Plaintiffs focus on the lack of notice regarding the country of removal as if their fear depends on receiving that notice. It does not,” DOJ attorneys wrote, arguing that the administrative process is sufficient and that plaintiffs are seeking relief in district court merely for convenience.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs disagreed, arguing in court filings that the current administrative options are inadequate and inaccessible to many individuals. They argue that without advance notice of the destination country, illegal immigrants have no meaningful opportunity to assert protection claims before they are already en route or at the point of removal.

“Defendants assert unfettered authority to deport noncitizens to countries that were not previously designated in immigration proceedings without providing any notice of which country, and thus without any meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture in that unidentified country,” attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote.

They added that a motion to reopen is not a practical remedy for many would-be deportees, especially those who are detained, unrepresented, or unaware of where they are being sent until it is too late to act.

The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment on the appellate court’s decision by publication time.

The case now returns to the district court, where Murphy is expected to hold a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in the coming days. The outcome of that hearing could determine whether the restrictions on third-country deportations remain in effect for the duration of the litigation.