On February 25, 2026, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts issued an 81-page decision in D.V.D. v. DHS setting aside the administration's third-country removal policy, the March 2025 ICE memo reaffirmed that July. What he held is narrower than it is often described: he did not rule that removing someone to a country they have no ties to is itself unlawful. He ruled the process unlawful. DHS must first attempt removal to the designated country or country of citizenship, and where a third country is chosen, the person is entitled to meaningful notice and a real opportunity to raise a country-specific fear of persecution or torture. Third-country removal conducted with adequate process remains lawful, and federal immigration law expressly contemplates it within a statutory order of preference.
The ruling never took effect. Murphy stayed it himself for 15 days. The First Circuit issued an administrative pause on March 11, 2026, then granted a stay pending appeal on March 16 by a 2-1 vote, with expedited briefing. No merits decision issued until September 18, 2026 (see the update below), and the policy operated continuously throughout.
This was not the administration's first win on the question. The Supreme Court stayed an earlier Murphy injunction 6-3 in June 2025 and overruled him again that July, prompting Justice Sotomayor to write in dissent that the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.
The countries at issue in the litigation include El Salvador, South Sudan, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, and Cameroon, with Libya and Mexico appearing in the appellate record.
Update (September 21, 2026): the First Circuit has now ruled on the merits, and largely against the administration. On September 18, in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, a three-judge panel upheld most of Judge Murphy's decision: the government must give people notice of where they are being sent and a meaningful chance to say they fear persecution or torture there. Judge Seth Aframe wrote, “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,” and, “We decline to adopt such an interpretation.” The opinion adds, “We reject DHS's efforts to create such an exception from whole cloth.” The panel reversed on one point, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the order in which the government must try possible destination countries, and it decided the case on statutory grounds without reaching due process.
The ruling has not changed anything on the ground yet. DHS General Counsel James Percival wrote, “The third country deportation policy continues, as the First Circuit's ruling is not currently in effect. If you claim fear in your home country, DHS has the right to send you elsewhere.” Supreme Court review is expected. As before, what the courts have held unlawful is the process, not third-country removal as such. For the network of agreements and money behind these removals, see The State Department's Refugee Bureau Now Runs an 'Office of Remigration' That Has Pledged $410 Million to Get 31 Countries to Take Other Nations' Deportees.
Update (September 25, 2026): the ruling took effect, and the administration went to the Supreme Court. Late on September 23, after the plaintiffs told the First Circuit they had heard from “multiple sources” of a flight scheduled from Alexandria, Louisiana, to Burundi, Rwanda and the Central African Republic, the court dissolved the stay it had granted in March, and Judge Murphy's order took effect. The administration said the ruling came minutes before midnight and forced it to cancel a flight carrying 70 people to three countries it did not name; its filing says DHS “has had to pull nearly 150 aliens from removal flights to at least four different countries.” Attorney General Todd Blanche: “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.”
On September 24 Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to pause the ruling while the government seeks review, and for an immediate administrative stay. The order, he wrote, would obstruct DHS “by inordinately delaying third-country removal for any alien who voices a fear of persecution or torture in that country, no matter how frivolous or belated the claim,” adding, “While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the nation does not.” Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency applications from the First Circuit, gave the plaintiffs until 4 p.m. on Monday, September 28, to respond. Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, for the plaintiffs, said the order “makes crystal clear no flights or buses should carry out third-country removals.”
More than 25,000 people have been deported to third countries under the policy, the large majority to Mexico. The order does not ban third-country deportations; as the AP noted, it requires that people be given a meaningful chance to object. Percival's September 21 statement that the ruling was “not currently in effect” no longer holds.
Update (September 28, 2026): among the people sent to third countries are LGBTQ asylum seekers who had won protection from being returned home, now placed in countries where their sexuality puts them at risk. CNN interviewed several in Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea and the Central African Republic, among them a 28-year-old gay woman from Turkey, identified by a pseudonym, who had been granted protection from removal to Turkey and was flown to the Central African Republic in July, and a 21-year-old bisexual Ghanaian woman sent to Cameroon, where same-sex relations are punishable by up to five years in prison. The AP reported a similar case in February: a gay Moroccan woman with a protection order was deported to Cameroon and has since returned to Morocco, where she is in hiding. Immigration advocates told CNN the United States is deporting “scores” of LGBTQ people this way; the government “does not provide data” on how many deportees sought protection based on sexuality. DHS told CNN: “We are applying the law as written. If a judge finds an illegal alien has no right to be in this country, we are going to remove them. Period.” Bridget Crawford of Immigration Equality: “But if you're queer or trans and you're being sent to a country that persecutes queer and trans people, it is just unconscionable.”
Update (September 29, 2026): the Supreme Court granted the stay. In an unsigned order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., it paused Judge Murphy's February ruling and went further, treating the application as a petition for review and agreeing to hear the case in its December 2026 session; the stay lasts until the Court issues its judgment. “Justice Sotomayor, Justice Kagan, and Justice Jackson would deny the application for stay,” the order says, and there is no written dissent or explanation. It is the third time the Court has let the administration enforce the policy while the litigation continues, CNN and USA Today noted. DHS General Counsel James Percival: “In our second Supreme Court victory in less than a week, DHS's third country removal policy is back in effect.” The migrants' lawyers had told the justices, “Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals,” and, “Rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully.” A decision is expected by the end of June 2027.