A federal appeals court has temporarily revived a controversial immigration measure from the administration of Donald Trump, allowing authorities to quickly deport migrants to countries other than their homeland while legal challenges continue to unfold.
The decision came from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, where a divided three-judge panel paused a lower court ruling that had struck down the policy. The pause means the government may continue using the measure while the appeal proceeds.
Earlier, Brian Murphy of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts had ruled the policy unlawful. His decision concluded that the approach risked sending migrants to unfamiliar or unsafe countries without giving them adequate notice or an opportunity to raise fears about potential harm.
The policy, introduced in 2025 as part of a broader immigration crackdown during Trump’s presidency, allows migrants to be deported to third countries—nations not originally listed in their removal orders. Immigration officials can proceed if diplomatic assurances suggest the individual will not face persecution or torture. In some cases, migrants may receive only a few hours’ notice before being removed.
Lawyers for the government argued that halting the policy undermined the enforcement of immigration law and created operational hurdles for federal agencies. They urged the appeals court to intervene while the case moves forward.
The panel agreed to pause the lower court’s order by a 2-1 vote. Judges Jeffrey R. Howard and Seth Aframe supported the stay, while Lara Montecalvo dissented, indicating she would have rejected the administration’s request.
The case has already drawn attention from the Supreme Court of the United States, which intervened earlier in the dispute. In prior proceedings, the justices lifted a separate injunction tied to the same policy and allowed deportations to proceed in specific instances.
The lawsuit challenging the measure was filed on behalf of migrants who faced deportation to countries not previously discussed during their immigration proceedings. Advocates argue that the practice strips individuals of meaningful notice and the chance to contest removal to unfamiliar destinations.
The appeals court has scheduled expedited briefing and plans to hear oral arguments in April, signaling that the legal fight over the policy’s future is far from settled.
