REGULATORY · MARKET STRUCTURE · USA
US federal court blocks DHS “third-country” deportations without notice/objection process
Change
On Feb. 25, 2026, a U.S. district judge ruled the Trump administration’s DHS policy of deporting migrants to third countries with no ties is unlawful and set it aside, while pausing the effect of his decision for 15 days to allow an appeal.
Why it matters
The ruling invalidates DHS’s “third-country” deportation policy as implemented, finding it unlawful because it deprives migrants of meaningful notice and a chance to object before removal to a country they have no ties to. This changes the operational baseline for removals by making process requirements a gating constraint rather than an administrative choice. The judge agreed to suspend (stay) his decision for 15 days, explicitly to give the government time to appeal, creating a defined near-term timing pressure. The case sits alongside a prior Supreme Court decision allowing quick third-country deportations, increasing the likelihood that near-term removals and litigation posture will hinge on how the appeal and any higher-court action treats the due-process requirements identified here.
Implications
- • DHS third-country removals face a binding notice-and-objection process constraint
- • Third-country deportations under the challenged policy are set aside absent reversal on appeal
- • A 15-day stay preserves current practice temporarily while appeal options are pursued
- • Removal timelines may lengthen where third-country placement is contemplated
Who is affected
- • Department of Homeland Security and immigration enforcement components
- • Migrants subject to removal who could be sent to third countries without ties
- • Immigration attorneys and legal aid groups litigating removal procedures
- • Third-country receiving governments involved in deportation arrangements
Source
Topics
World & Politics Policy & Regulation Migration Law & Public Safety Court Rulings