Appeals Court Rejects Trump's Third-Country Deportation Policy
Left 50%
Center 50%
Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right
What happened
On Friday, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston ruled that a Department of Homeland Security policy allowing deportation of immigrants to countries other than their countries of origin with little or no notice is unlawful. Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote that a person’s right to contest removal based on fear of persecution requires prior notice of the intended destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest it. The appellate court largely upheld a lower-court order by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy finding the policy violated due-process protections. DHS General Counsel James Percival said the First Circuit ruling is not currently in effect and that the third-country deportation policy continues. The decision is expected to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 4 articles
2 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 2 of 4
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, Circuit Judge Seth Aframe, Human Rights First, National Immigration Litigation Alliance and James Percival
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court ruling
- Credits another outlet 0 of 4
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
- Unnamed sources 0 of 4
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 18, 22:38 UTC by New York Times, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Times (court ruling).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT.
Only left-leaning outlets are covering this story
— the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
Right-leaning outlets have not covered this ruling, so a reader there would not learn that an appeals court has restricted third-country deportations. Left-leaning coverage reports that the First Circuit said migrants may contest removal to a country other than their origin, and that the dispute could reach the Supreme Court. The Washington Post calls the decision a major setback and says the administration has already removed tens of thousands of unauthorized immigrants to countries where they are not citizens.
The same side parts on emphasis. ABC News opens with a unanimous panel striking down a DHS policy of swift third-country removals and with a man who learned his destination hours into a flight. The New York Times never names the department, the notice problem, or any destination country.
How many people have already been flown to countries they were never told they could be sent to, and what remedy do they have now?
Bottom line
Right-leaning outlets have not reported the First Circuit's third-country ruling at all, while The Washington Post is already putting those removals at tens of thousands.
The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
- The ruling allows migrants to contest deportations to countries other than their place of origin.
- Around 80% of migrants deported to third countries under the administration have been sent to Mexico.
- DHS General Counsel James Percival said the First Circuit ruling is not currently in effect and the third-country policy continues.
- The administration has secured formal third-country deportation deals with 35 countries, including Liberia, Ghana, the Central African Republic and Sierra Leone.
- Human Rights First said the U.S. has spent nearly $50 million on these deportation agreements.
- Immigrants were routinely transferred to third countries with little to no notice when the administration cited diplomatic assurances that the receiving nation would not mistreat them.
The Left View
The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, and CBS News reported that the First Circuit restricted or struck down the Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy and that migrants must get notice and a chance to contest removal to nations where they have no ties. Outlets framed the ruling as a setback for an effort that has sent tens of thousands of people—including Latin American nationals—to countries such as Liberia, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and the Central African Republic under deals with more than 30 nations. Coverage quoted the court’s language on notice, cited Judge Murphy’s earlier orders, and included advocate statements from Human Rights First and the National Immigration Litigation Alliance plus deportee interviews about lack of notice. CBS News also reported DHS’s statement that the policy continues, that more than 25,000 people have been sent to third countries (about 80 percent to Mexico, per one advocacy group), and that the case will almost certainly go to the Supreme Court.
Our Take (balanced)
The story is substantive: it is anchored in a named appellate decision, a written opinion, identified judges, a defined DHS rule, and a public statement from DHS counsel—not a single uncorroborated claim. Established: the First Circuit held that notice and a meaningful chance to contest third-country removal are required; the panel largely affirmed Judge Murphy; Percival said the ruling is not in effect and the policy continues. Still alleged or one-sided in the coverage, not court findings: advocate characterizations of receiving countries and of the administration’s motives, dollar figures on agreements, and individual deportee accounts of being uninformed. No right-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for a Supreme Court appeal, any stay or mandate timing, the full written opinion and docket, and further DHS or Justice Department filings on whether and how the policy is applied.
4 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.