A federal appeals court in Boston has ruled that the government cannot send migrants to unfamiliar, distant countries without first telling them where they are going and giving them a genuine chance to object. The First Circuit's decision affirms a principle as old as ordered liberty itself: that those subject to state power must have a meaningful voice before that power is exercised against them. More than 25,000 people have already been deported under the contested policy, some of them Latin Americans left stranded in sub-Saharan Africa with no warning and no recourse. The ruling is likely t
Appeals Court Blocks Trump's Third-Country Deportation Policy
Thousands of migrants have been deported to countries thousands of miles from their origin with no notice, including Latin Americans sent to sub-Saharan Africa, leaving them stranded without opportunity to contest removal.
I feel far away, on the other side of the world.
Mark
So the court said the government can't just send people to random countries without telling them. What exactly was the government doing before?
Mimi
They had a policy that let immigration officials deport migrants to countries they'd never been to, sometimes thousands of miles from home, with almost no warning. A Honduran man ended up in Liberia without being told it was coming.
Mark
Liberia? How does that happen?
Mimi
The administration negotiated agreements with over 30 countries to accept deportees. If a country promised not to torture or persecute them, officials could deport people there with barely any notice.
Luke
But wait—how many people are we actually talking about?
Mimi
Over 25,000 have been deported to third countries. About 80 percent went to Mexico, but thousands went to places like Liberia, including people from Central and South America.
Mark
And the court said that's illegal?
Mimi
The appeals court ruled it violates due process. You can't send someone somewhere without telling them and giving them a chance to say why it's dangerous.
Luke
Is that ruling actually stopping the deportations right now?
Mimi
No. The DHS said the policy continues because the ruling isn't in effect yet. It'll probably go to the Supreme Court.
Mark
So this might not stick?
Luke
That's the real question. The appeals court found it unconstitutional, but the administration says they have the right to deport people who claim fear in their home country to somewhere else. The Supreme Court will have to decide if that's true.
Mimi
And in the meantime, people are still being deported without knowing where they're going.
Mark
How long has this been happening?
Mimi
The policy started last year. The litigation alliance said some people have been deported for over a year without ever being told they could be sent to these countries.
Il Polso
- Thousands of migrants — including Hondurans, Colombians, and Brazilians — have been flown to countries like Liberia with no notice, no explanation, and no chance to say they feared what awaited them there.
- The First Circuit found the administration's system fundamentally broken: when blanket assurances from a receiving country were in place, detainees could be removed with almost no warning at all.
- DHS pushed back immediately, with its general counsel announcing on social media that deportations would continue because the ruling had not yet taken legal effect.
- The administration has built a web of third-country agreements with more than 30 nations, using them as a pressure valve when courts block direct returns to migrants' home countries.
- The case is almost certain to reach the Supreme Court, turning Friday's ruling into a significant but potentially short-lived pause in one of the administration's most aggressive immigration tools.
A federal appeals court in Boston has ruled that the government cannot send migrants to unfamiliar, distant countries without first telling them where they are going and giving them a genuine chance to object. The First Circuit's decision affirms a principle as old as ordered liberty itself: that those subject to state power must have a meaningful voice before that power is exercised against them. More than 25,000 people have already been deported under the contested policy, some of them Latin Americans left stranded in sub-Saharan Africa with no warning and no recourse. The ruling is likely to travel to the Supreme Court, where the nation's highest bench will be asked to weigh the reach of executive authority against the floor of human dignity the Constitution is meant to guarantee.
A federal appeals court in Boston ruled Friday that immigration officials cannot deport detainees to countries where they have no connection without first giving those people notice and a real opportunity to object. The First Circuit largely upheld an earlier ruling from a lower court judge who had found the administration's third-country deportation policy unconstitutional.
The policy, put in place by the Department of Homeland Security, allowed officials to send migrants to nations other than their country of origin — sometimes thousands of miles away — with minimal warning. When a receiving country provided blanket assurances it would not persecute deportees, officials could proceed with almost no notice at all. The appellate court found this arrangement violated basic due process: the right to contest removal to a dangerous country means little, the panel wrote, if a person is never told where they are being sent.
The scale of the policy has been sweeping. More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to third countries under the Trump administration, roughly 80 percent to Mexico and others to nations across Africa, including Liberia. A CBS News investigation found a group of Latin Americans — citizens of Honduras, Colombia, Brazil, Guatemala, and Venezuela — living in a West African hotel after being flown there without being told their destination or given any chance to challenge it. "I feel far away, on the other side of the world," said one Honduran man in the group.
DHS pushed back swiftly, with its general counsel declaring on social media that the policy would continue because the ruling was not yet in effect. The administration has negotiated deportation agreements with more than 30 countries, using them in cases where court orders block direct returns home but do not prohibit removal altogether.
The First Circuit's decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, making Friday's ruling a consequential but potentially temporary check on one of the administration's most far-reaching immigration enforcement tools.
A federal appeals court in Boston dealt the Trump administration a significant legal blow on Friday, ruling that immigration officials cannot send detainees to countries where they have no connection without first giving those people notice and a genuine chance to object. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld an earlier ruling from a lower court judge who had found the administration's "third-country" deportation policy to be unconstitutional.
The policy, put in place last year by the Department of Homeland Security, allowed federal immigration officials to deport migrants to nations other than their country of origin—sometimes thousands of miles away—with minimal warning and little opportunity for the detainees to challenge the decision. In cases where a third country had given the State Department blanket assurances that it would not persecute or torture deportees, officials could proceed with almost no notice at all. Only when a country declined to provide such assurances were detainees supposed to receive any warning.
The appellate court found this system violated fundamental due process rights. "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," the court panel wrote. The ruling affirmed the position of U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, who had previously blocked the administration's third-country deportation campaign on constitutional grounds.
The scale of the policy has been substantial. More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to third countries under the Trump administration, with roughly 80 percent sent to Mexico and others dispatched to nations across Africa, including Liberia. The National Immigration Litigation Alliance, one of the groups that challenged the policy in court, pointed to the human consequences: "For over a year, many class members have been deported to countries they had never been told they could be removed to, with little or no notice and without a meaningful opportunity to explain the dangers awaiting them there," said the group's executive director, Trina Realmuto.
A CBS News investigation documented the experience of a group of deportees flown to Liberia last month. The group included citizens from Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras, and Venezuela, as well as people from other parts of Africa. Living in a hotel in West Africa, they said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had not informed them they would be removed to Liberia and had not given them a chance to contest the decision. Elvis Rodriguez Venturas, a Honduran national in the group, expressed the disorientation of the situation: "I'm concerned. I feel far away, on the other side of the world."
The DHS pushed back against the ruling. James Percival, the department's general counsel, said on social media Friday that the third-country deportation policy would continue because the appeals court's ruling was not yet in effect. "If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere," he wrote.
The administration has negotiated third-country deportation agreements with more than 30 nations globally. In some cases, deportees are sent to a third country because a court order prevents them from being returned to their home country but does not prohibit deportation altogether. The policy has become an intensifying part of the administration's broader crackdown on illegal immigration.
The First Circuit's decision will almost certainly be appealed to the Supreme Court, making Friday's ruling a significant but potentially temporary setback for the administration's immigration enforcement strategy. The case now moves into the highest court in the land, where the fundamental question of whether the government can deport people to countries where they have no ties—and where they may face danger—without their knowledge or consent will be tested once more.
Citazioni salienti
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.— U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
For over a year, many class members have been deported to countries they had never been told they could be removed to, with little or no notice and without a meaningful opportunity to explain the dangers awaiting them there.— Trina Realmuto, National Immigration Litigation Alliance
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su CBS News ↗
Politics & Governance