Federal appeals court deals blow to Trump deportation agenda

A federal appeals court formally struck down the Trump administration's current format for deporting illegal immigrants to third-party countries on Tuesday.

The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued a ruling last week that endorsed a lower court order that Immigration and Customs Enforcement must allow migrants a meaningful chance to claim they would be endangered if deported to a third-party country.

This week, however, ICE officials attempted to move forward with deporting at least one migrant, who originally hails from Peru, to Ghana.

LIBERIA AGREES TO ACCEPT 1,200 THIRD-COUNTRY DEPORTEES FROM US WITHIN A YEAR

The Trump administration has repeatedly used third-party countries for deportations to execute removal orders on migrants who claim they would be tortured if returned to their country of origin.

ICE argued the Peruvian migrant, identified as John Doe, could still be removed because the First Circuit had not formally issued a mandate striking down the policy, according to The American Prospect.

TRUMP PLANS TO DEPORT IRANIANS TO VIOLENCE-PLAGUED CENTRAL AFRICAN NATION IN NEW DEAL

When asked for a clarification this week, the First Circuit formally issued that mandate, striking down a stay that had allowed third-party deportations to continue while the case was being litigated in higher courts.

"Consistent with this court's September 18, 2026, Judgment, the March 16, 2026, stay pending appeal is dissolved," the appeals court wrote in a brief order on Wednesday.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT COMPARES TRUMP MIGRANT DETENTION POLICY TO JAPANESE AMERICAN INTERNMENT

The First Circuit's ruling upheld a February 2026 decision from Judge Brian Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, who contended that the third-party deportations violated migrants' due process rights because it could send them to unfamiliar or dangerous countries without their knowledge.

First Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, one of two Biden appointees on a three-judge panel that handed down last week's ruling, argued that Murphy was "sensible" to require DHS to allow migrants a "meaningful" chance to raise concerns about a country to which they could be deported.

"DHS's proposed interpretation would deny access to that protection to a substantial swath of noncitizens who are sent to third ⁠countries with no notice of their destination," Aframe wrote. "We decline to adopt such an interpretation."

Reuters contributed to this report.