Trump’s third-country deportation push hits a legal roadblock
A US appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s bid to fast-track third-country deportations, upholding a lower court injunction. The judges cited failure to meet legal standards and warned of irreparable harm from wrongful removals pending further judicial review
Washington: The Trump administration’s effort to fast-track deportations to third countries hit a legal setback after a US appeals court refused to pause a lower court order blocking the policy.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston on Wednesday (local time) denied the government’s emergency request to lift a preliminary injunction that restricts deportations of certain migrants to countries other than their own.
“The emergency motion for a stay of the April 18 preliminary injunction pending appeal and for an immediate administrative stay is denied, the government not having met the standard for the relief sought,” the court said.
The three-judge panel said the administration had failed to satisfy the legal test required to secure a stay while the case proceeds on appeal.
Citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Nken v. Holder, the court noted that a party seeking a stay must “make a ‘strong showing that (it) is likely to succeed on the merits’ in its appeal” and demonstrate irreparable harm, among other factors.
The dispute centres on the Department of Homeland Security’s March 30 guidance regarding third-country removals.
Under that policy, US authorities sought to deport certain migrants to countries willing to accept them, even if those countries are not their nations of origin. In its order, the court expressed concern about “the continuing application of the Department of Homeland Security’s March 30 Guidance Regarding Third Country Removals.”
It also pointed to “the irreparable harm that will result from wrongful removals in this context,” signalling unease about the consequences of deportations carried out before full judicial review. The judges directed both sides to address key legal questions in their briefs.
Among them is whether the class-wide injunction improperly “enjoin or restrain the operation of” certain provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
The court also asked whether the relevant section of the Act “presumes the availability of individualised judicial review to individuals subject to third-country removals” and therefore does not bar class-wide injunctive relief where such relief is necessary.
In addition, the panel questioned whether the plaintiffs’ Administrative Procedure Act and due process claims fall outside the scope of that statutory provision.
The case, titled D.V.D.; M.M.; E.F.D.; O.C.G. v. US Department of Homeland Security, names DHS, Secretary Kristi Noem, Attorney General Pamela Bondi, and other officials as defendants.
