Another Court Blocks Trump Deportations While SCOTUS Gets Ignored

James Percival doesn’t mince words. The DHS Chief Counsel called out what everyone’s been watching for months but few have the guts to name. A handful of federal district judges are engaging in what he termed “naked political activism,” repeatedly blocking deportations and rolling back Temporary Protected Status decisions despite clear guidance from the Supreme Court. That’s not jurisprudence. That’s resistance dressed up in robes.

The latest blow landed Tuesday when the First Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Trump administration’s format for deporting illegal immigrants to third-party countries. The ruling endorsed a lower court order demanding that Immigration and Customs Enforcement give migrants a “meaningful chance” to claim they’d face danger if deported to a third-party nation. Sounds reasonable until you realize what it actually means in practice.

Here’s what happened. ICE tried moving forward with removing a Peruvian migrant to Ghana this week. The agency argued they could proceed because the First Circuit hadn’t formally issued a mandate yet. Classic bureaucratic maneuvering, sure, but also a legitimate reading of where things stood procedurally. When asked for clarification, the court quickly issued that mandate and struck down the stay that had kept third-party deportations moving during appeals. The whole thing has the feel of goalposts on wheels.

Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee, started this mess back in February 2026. He ruled that third-party deportations violated due process because they could send people to unfamiliar or dangerous countries without proper notification. The First Circuit panel, which included two Biden appointees, backed him up. Judge Seth Aframe praised Murphy for being “sensible” in requiring DHS to let migrants raise concerns about their destination countries.

Let’s be honest about what’s really happening here. The Trump administration uses third-party deportations when migrants claim they’d be tortured in their home countries but their removal orders still stand. It’s a practical solution to a complex problem. You can’t just ignore lawful removal orders because someone makes a claim, but you also can’t send people back to genuine danger. Third countries solve that equation.

But federal judges have decided the process itself is the problem. They keep ruling that the administration violated due process by failing to notify migrants of imminent removals. Every single time, it’s the same playbook. Block the deportation, demand more process, create another layer of appeals, extend the timeline. The pattern is so obvious it insults your intelligence to pretend otherwise.

The real question nobody in power wants to answer is this: when does judicial review become judicial veto? Courts are supposed to interpret law, not create immigration policy from the bench. SCOTUS has weighed in repeatedly, yet certain district judges act like those rulings are merely suggestions. That’s not how our system works. Or at least, it’s not how it’s supposed to work.

Percival’s frustration makes perfect sense when you step back and look at the full picture. The administration negotiates agreements with countries like Liberia and Ghana to accept deportees. They follow established procedures. They work within existing law. Then a single district judge in Massachusetts decides the whole framework violates some previously undiscovered due process requirement, and suddenly months of diplomatic work and lawful enforcement grind to a halt.

This isn’t about protecting genuine refugees or ensuring fair hearings. We already have processes for that. This is about a small group of ideologically motivated judges substituting their policy preferences for the decisions of elected officials and the guidance of higher courts. Call it what it is.