<p>The Trump administration will request the Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling that invalidated the government's framework for rapid third-country deportations, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced on Thursday.</p>
<p>The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Boston, issued an order on Wednesday night that dissolved a prior stay, allowing the lower court’s ruling to take effect during the appeal. The court's decision found that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could not deport immigrants to countries not specified in their removal orders without providing them with meaningful notice and an opportunity to express fears of persecution or torture.</p>
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img alt="U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks at a news briefing in the Rose Garden of the White House." class="wp-image-4728362" height="682" src="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/AP26258674100184.jpg?w=696" width="1024" /><figcaption class="wp-element-caption">U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche speaks at a news briefing on Tuesday, Sept. 15, 2026, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)</figcaption></figure>
<p>“Without even allowing the government a chance to respond, and in the dark of night, a federal appeals court blocked us from conducting all third-country removals of illegal aliens, an entirely legal and invaluable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration,” Blanche stated on social media. “We will immediately seek relief from the Supreme Court, which previously granted a stay in this very same case.”</p>
<p>The case, D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, tests the administration’s authority to remove individuals with final deportation orders to nations other than their countries of origin, citizenship, or prior residence.</p>
<p>In its opinion issued on Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the 1st Circuit upheld a February ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who set aside the DHS’s guidance on third-country removals from March and July 2025. The panel concluded that the government’s policy was unlawful because it permitted removals without effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to pursue protection claims.</p>
<p>“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,” Judge Seth Aframe wrote for the appeals court.</p>
<p>The decision did not categorically deem third-country deportations unlawful but rejected the DHS’s rapid-removal process. The panel also vacated a portion of Murphy’s ruling that would have required the government to first seek removal to a migrant’s designated country or country of nationality, citing that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring that claim.</p>
<p>The timing of the ruling's effectiveness was a point of contention. The Justice Department argued that it could continue using the policy until the 1st Circuit issued its mandate, which formally returns jurisdiction to the lower court and puts an appellate ruling into effect.</p>
<p>This issue arose in litigation concerning a Peruvian man referred to in court records as John Doe. ICE aimed to transfer Doe ahead of a planned removal to the Central African Republic, according to court filings. Doe had previously received protection from removal to Peru under the Convention Against Torture, making the proposed third-country removal particularly significant.</p>
<p>After lawyers for the D.V.D. class requested the 1st Circuit to intervene, the court dissolved the March stay. Its order stated, “Consistent with this court’s September 18, 2026, Judgment, the March 16, 2026, stay pending appeal is dissolved.” Reuters reported that the administration had planned a Thursday flight from Virginia that could send migrants to Burundi, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court has previously intervened twice in the dispute regarding Murphy’s preliminary injunction, staying the injunction in June last year while the 1st Circuit reviewed the case, and later allowing eight men to be deported to South Sudan at the administration’s request.</p>
<p>Blanche indicated that the administration will seek emergency relief again. Unless the Supreme Court pauses the 1st Circuit’s ruling, the DHS cannot resume removals under the invalidated policy. As of early Thursday afternoon, the administration had not filed its formal appeal to the Supreme Court.</p>