Trump Administration Turns to Supreme Court to 'Halt That Chaos' Over Third-Country Deportations

The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to intervene after the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a ruling that found Department of Homeland Security guidance governing removals to third countries unlawful.

The emergency application followed the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 people from Louisiana to three countries that the administration did not identify publicly. Plaintiffs' lawyers told the appeals court they believed the scheduled destinations were Burundi, Rwanda and the Central African Republic.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the flight was cancelled shortly before midnight on Wednesday, after the First Circuit clarified that an earlier order allowing flights to continue while the litigation proceeded was no longer in effect. He argued that the change required fresh diplomatic discussions with each destination.

Sauer asked the justices to enter an immediate administrative stay while they consider the government's application. He described the request as necessary to 'halt that chaos', a phrase attributable to Sauer's Supreme Court filing, rather than to President Donald Trump.

The case concerns noncitizens with final removal orders who face removal to countries neither identified in their orders nor previously named in writing during their immigration proceedings.

In its 18 September 2026 ruling in D.V.D. v. US Department of Homeland Security, the First Circuit held that they must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise claims that they fear persecution or torture in the proposed destination.

Why the Policy Faces Court Pressure

The dispute began after four noncitizens filed a putative class action in March 2025. They argued that DHS had adopted a policy allowing removals to third countries without giving affected people adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns.

The First Circuit examined DHS guidance issued on 30 March and 9 July 2025. Under the March guidance, DHS could remove a person to a third country without further procedures if the State Department considered that country's diplomatic assurances against persecution or torture credible.

Where those assurances were absent or considered not credible, the guidance provided for notice and a screening by US Citizenship and Immigration Services if the person affirmatively expressed fear of removal. The guidance stated that USCIS would assess whether the person was more likely than not to be persecuted on a protected ground or tortured in the proposed country.

The First Circuit affirmed the requirements for effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-based claims. It also upheld the vacatur of the DHS guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act.

The court separately vacated declarations requiring DHS to follow a particular sequence when considering potential destinations. It found that the representative plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue that sequencing claim. The ruling did not affirmatively reject the underlying statutory hierarchy.

The ruling does not categorically prohibit every possible third-country removal. Instead, it invalidates the challenged DHS guidance and requires effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise relevant fear-based claims before covered removals to third countries.

The administration has argued that those requirements are unworkable. Attorney General Todd Blanche said the ruling, issued 'in the dark of night', deprived authorities of 'an entirely legal and valuable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration'.

Sauer argued that the ruling would cause delays whenever a person raised a fear of persecution or torture, 'no matter how frivolous or belated' the claim. The government has also warned of cascading delays, added expense and the need to rework agreements with foreign governments.

The administration has said the policy is used when a person's home country will not accept them or when returning them there is not possible. James Percival, DHS's general counsel, said on X on 23 September that 25,000 people had been deported to third countries, describing the practice as 'an essential public safety tool'. That figure is a government claim and has not been independently established in the material reviewed.

What the Policy Involves

Third-country removals involve sending people to destinations that may not have been identified in their immigration proceedings and with which they may have little or no prior connection.

The vast majority of people removed to third countries have been sent to Mexico, while other arrangements have involved more than two dozen countries, including Liberia and Guyana.

Lawyers for two men deported to Equatorial Guinea said this month that police beat the men, held them at gunpoint and detained them in a hotel converted into a detention centre.

The First Circuit's judgment focused on the legal process before removal, rather than determining whether every person sent to a third country would ultimately face danger. Under the ruling, covered individuals must have a real opportunity to object when they claim that removal could expose them to persecution or torture.

The protections involve two related but distinct forms of relief. One concerns persecution based on factors including race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. The other concerns protection under the Convention Against Torture, which can prohibit removal where the applicable legal standard for establishing a likelihood of torture is met.

The litigation also raised concerns about 'chain refoulement', when a person is sent to one country and subsequently transferred to another country where they could face the danger the original removal was intended to avoid. The First Circuit discussed the issue in its background analysis but did not establish a standalone prohibition on chain refoulement in this ruling.

What Happens Next

For the administration, the immediate concern is operational. Officials say the cancellation of the Louisiana flight required new arrangements with foreign governments, immigration authorities and carriers. For those scheduled to be removed, the cancellation means the planned removal did not take place.

The Supreme Court previously granted DHS a stay in June 2025, allowing third-country removals to continue while the litigation proceeded. The First Circuit later upheld the district court's final judgment, and the appeals court said the earlier order allowing flights to continue was no longer in effect.

The Supreme Court has not yet indicated how it will respond to the administration's emergency application. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has initial responsibility for emergency appeals from the First Circuit, directed the immigrants involved in the case to respond by 4pm EDT on Monday, 28 September.

The dispute now centres on the balance between rapid immigration enforcement and the requirement that people facing removal receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge removal on persecution- or torture-related grounds.