BOSTON (Sept. 18, 2026) — A three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday largely upheld a February ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that declared the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country deportation Guidance unlawful, Reuters reported, in a decision that tracks the court’s published opinion in D.V.D. v. DHS.

The policy at issue allows immigration authorities to remove migrants to countries other than their own — often with as little as about six hours’ notice — without a meaningful chance to raise persecution or torture fears about the destination. Under President Donald Trump, the administration has sent more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries, according to Third Country Deportation Watch, a project of Refugees International and Human Rights First, Reuters said.

Aframe: Murphy’s reading “sensible”

Writing for the panel, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe said Murphy adopted a “sensible” interpretation of immigration law requiring migrants be given a “meaningful” chance to raise concerns before third-country removal. “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,” Aframe wrote. “We decline to adopt such an interpretation.” The quoted language appears in the 1st Circuit opinion (No. 26-1212, filed Sept. 18, 2026).

The panel — Judges Montecalvo, Howard, and Aframe — otherwise affirmed Murphy’s final judgment setting aside the Guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act for failing to provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest third-country removal on fear-based grounds.

One piece vacated: sequencing / standing

The court did vacate one part of Murphy’s relief on Article III standing grounds: declarations that would have forced DHS to seek removal first to countries migrants designated or of which they are subjects, nationals, or citizens before sending them to third countries. “We vacate on standing grounds the two declarations pertaining to” that sequencing obligation, the opinion states; “We otherwise affirm the final judgment.”

Same case already at SCOTUS twice

Earlier in the same litigation, the Trump administration twice persuaded the Supreme Court to lift a preliminary injunction protecting migrants’ due-process rights — clearing a path, among other things, for eight men to be deported to South Sudan, Reuters reported. The administration is expected to appeal Friday’s decision; DHS had no immediate comment.

The ruling is a due-process check on how far the executive can stretch removal power when the destination was never part of the underlying removal order — notice and a real chance to be heard before the plane leaves, not after. Whether that holding survives another trip to the Supreme Court is the next chapter.

Dated Friday, Sept. 18, 2026: 1st Circuit largely upholds Murphy block on DHS third-country Guidance; Aframe “sensible” / declines DHS reading; sequencing declarations vacated for standing; SCOTUS path expected again; DHS no immediate comment.

Sources