Judges Formally Declare 'More Streamlined' Trump Deportation Policy 'Unlawful' Over a 'Bedrock Principle'

A federal appeals court ruled on Friday that the Trump administration's policy of deporting immigrants to third countries where they are not nationals is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act. The judges held that the Department of Homeland Security must provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before carrying out such a removal.

For context, the case began in March 2025, when several detained men challenged the DHS directive. It expanded after the department attempted to deport eight men to South Sudan, although none was a Sudanese national. Following a series of court orders, the men were detained at a US military base in Djibouti.

Trump Deportation Policy Faced Repeated Court Orders

In April, US District Judge Brian E Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, determined that the third-country policy violated the 'bedrock principle' of due process. He entered a declaratory judgment for the class-action plaintiffs and set aside the policy as unlawful.

The district court issued six orders during the proceedings, while courts of appeals issued two. Murphy repeatedly clarified his directions and certified the class to broaden the relief after immigrants were sent to El Salvador on two occasions in violation of another judge's orders.

The Trump administration asked the US Supreme Court for a stay in May 2025. A majority granted that request the following month. Murphy subsequently said the stay did not affect a remedial order he had issued after finding that the government repeatedly violated several court orders.

In July 2025, however, the Supreme Court majority struck down that remedial order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

Murphy issued his full ruling on the merits in February. The following month, the administration asked the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for an emergency stay while it appealed, and that request was granted.

Judges Reject 'More Streamlined' Removal Process

The First Circuit has now reached its decision on the merits. In its 55-page opinion, the court found that the policy conflicts with statutory and regulatory provisions governing claims based on fears of persecution.

The policy authorised third-country removals without effective notice or a meaningful opportunity for affected people to make those claims, the court found. 'The [policy] is therefore unlawful under the APA,' the opinion states.

The judges rejected the administration's argument that existing rules allowed the 'more streamlined' third-country removal process created by the policy. According to the panel, that argument assumed that current statutes and regulations left room for removals without notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-of-persecution claims.

The court said the central question was not whether the government could lawfully establish a streamlined system through a new statute or regulation. Instead, it had to decide whether the DHS process complied with the statutes and regulations already governing such claims.

Those provisions prescribe hearing-related procedures without creating an exception for third-country removals. 'We reject DHS's efforts to create such an exception from whole cloth,' the opinion states.

'Bedrock Principle' Question Left Undecided

The appeals court declined to decide whether the policy also violated constitutional due process. It found that the applicable statutes and regulations were sufficient to resolve the case.

The panel stressed that its approach did not 'imply doubt' about the district court's due process analysis. It said the force of that analysis supported its use of the constitutional-avoidance principle.

In a footnote, the judges also questioned whether a receiving country could credibly provide blanket assurances that every removed non-citizen would be protected from persecution or torture. Such assurances would need to account for possible conduct by rogue agents and non-state actors, both of which can fall within the relevant federal protections.