The Trump administration is preparing to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a federal appeals court blocked the government from carrying out deportations of migrants to countries other than their countries of origin. Attorney General Todd Blanche said Thursday that the Justice Department would seek emergency relief from the high court.
The legal dispute centers on the administration’s policy of sending migrants to so-called third countries, including nations with which they may have no previous connection. The policy has become a significant test of the government’s authority to conduct rapid removals and the due-process protections available to migrants facing deportation.
Appeals Court Blocks Third-Country Removals
The latest development followed an order from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston. The court put into effect a ruling that found the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy unlawful.
Immigration lawyers had asked the appeals court to act after learning that the administration was preparing a deportation flight involving migrants who were expected to be sent to several African countries.
Blanche criticized the appeals court’s action and said the administration would immediately turn to the Supreme Court. He argued that third-country removals are an important immigration enforcement mechanism and said the government should be allowed to continue using the policy while the legal dispute proceeds.
The case involves broader questions about how much notice migrants must receive before being transferred to a country other than their own and whether they must have an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution, torture or other dangers in the destination country.
Supreme Court Has Previously Intervened
The administration’s decision to seek Supreme Court relief comes after the justices previously intervened in the same legal dispute.
The Supreme Court had earlier lifted a preliminary injunction that restricted the administration’s third-country deportation policy. It later allowed the government to proceed with the removal of eight men to South Sudan while the broader litigation continued.
The administration introduced its current third-country removal framework in 2025. Under the policy, migrants can be transferred to countries other than their own under certain circumstances, including when authorities obtain diplomatic assurances concerning their treatment. Critics of the policy have challenged the amount of notice given to migrants and the opportunity available to contest a proposed removal.
According to figures cited by the Third Country Deportation Watch project, the administration has used agreements with at least 29 third countries and has sent more than 25,000 migrants through such arrangements.
Legal Battle Could Shape U.S. Deportation Policy
The Supreme Court’s response could have broader implications for the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement strategy.
At the heart of the dispute is whether the government can rapidly transfer migrants to third countries while providing only limited notice and without giving them a meaningful opportunity to raise safety-related objections.
The appeals court’s ruling has therefore placed the administration’s third-country deportation program under renewed legal pressure. The planned Supreme Court request is expected to determine whether the government can resume the disputed removals while the underlying case continues.
For now, the issue remains before the courts, with the administration seeking to overturn the latest restriction and immigration advocates continuing to challenge the policy on due-process grounds.
