Tue, 19 May 2026
Hunch
Sign in
Supreme Court20 Sep 2026

Judges blocked Trump's deportations to other countries. Is the Supreme Court next?

A federal appeals court in Boston ruled that Donald Trump's government cannot send people to countries they have no tie to without a real hearing.

5 min read

What happened

A three-judge panel of the First Circuit in Boston largely upheld a February ruling that the Department of Homeland Security policy of fast removals to countries migrants have no tie to is unlawful.

People must get a real chance to say they fear for their safety before the US sends them to a country that is not their own. A three-judge panel of the federal appeals court for the First Circuit, in Boston, ruled this on . It largely confirmed a February ruling that the Department of Homeland Security policy is unlawful.

Judge Seth Aframe wrote the ruling for the panel. The case is D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212. The panel did overturn one part of the lower ruling, on whether officials must first try countries the person is tied to.

The policy began in . It allowed removal on short notice if officials had a promise from the other country that the person would not be persecuted or tortured. More than 25,000 people have been sent to at least 29 other countries under it, most often Mexico.

The policy has kept running while the case went on. A district judge ruled it unlawful on . On the First Circuit lifted that block while it heard the appeal. The Department of Homeland Security did not comment on the new ruling.

Sources: Al Jazeera (2), Reuters

The Pattern

We looked at every ruling since where a US appeals court went against the Trump government on an immigration policy and kept it blocked for the whole country or a whole group. Did the government then ask the Supreme Court for an emergency pause? We found eleven rulings. One office decides every one of these requests, so the eleven are not fully separate. The two detention rulings came from one policy and one choice, so they count as one. Newest first.

7 of 11
Seven of the eleven losses brought an emergency application: day 2, day 3, day 5, day 6, day 11, day 13, then day 21. Nothing in the record was filed after day 21, and the four that produced nothing have now run 32, 51, 144 and 148 days.
2026 Appeals court, places of worshipnot held
A federal appeals court blocked immigration enforcement near some places of worship. Thirty-two days later, on the day of the Boston ruling, no emergency application in that case had reached the Supreme Court. (Reuters)
2026 Ninth Circuit, detentionnot held
The Ninth Circuit ruled the government cannot hold people arrested inside the country without a chance to seek bond. No emergency application followed: the government had already gone to the top court the slow way. (Al Jazeera)
Show the other 9 cases
2026 Second Circuit, detentionnot held
The Second Circuit rejected the same detention policy by three votes to nil, saying the government had misread a 1996 law. The government went to the Supreme Court in June by petition, not by emergency application. (Al Jazeera)
2026 Washington, asylum bannot held
The appeals court in Washington held that the asylum ban Donald Trump signed on his first day back in office was unlawful. No emergency application on that ruling had reached the Supreme Court 148 days later. (Al Jazeera)
2026 New York, Haiti protectionsheld
The appeals court in New York upheld protected status for 350,000 people from Haiti. Five days later the government asked the Supreme Court to lift that order, and in June the justices let the terminations go ahead. (The New York Times)
2025 Ninth Circuit, Venezuela appealheld
A Ninth Circuit panel upheld protections for 600,000 people from Venezuela, finding the homeland security secretary had no power to undo an earlier extension. The government filed at the Supreme Court 21 days later. (The Guardian)
2025 Ninth Circuit, Los Angelesheld
The Ninth Circuit kept limits on immigration stops in Los Angeles in place. Six days later the government asked the Supreme Court to lift them, and on the justices did. (The New York Times)
2025 First Circuit, removalsheld
The First Circuit refused to pause the first order blocking fast removals to countries people had no tie to. Eleven days later the government filed an emergency application, and the Supreme Court granted it in . (Reuters)
2025 First Circuit, paroleheld
The First Circuit refused to let the government cancel humanitarian parole for people from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. The government was at the Supreme Court three days later and won on . (Reuters)
2025 Ninth Circuit, Venezuela statusheld
The Ninth Circuit refused to let the government end deportation protections for Venezuelans while the case ran. Thirteen days later the government filed at the Supreme Court, and on the justices allowed the end. (The New York Times)
2025 Washington, wartime lawheld
The appeals court in Washington kept in place a block on removals of Venezuelans under a 1798 wartime law. Two days later the government asked the Supreme Court to wipe out the orders, and on it got most of that. (Reuters)

The Read

The timing matters most. Since the government has lost eleven appeal rulings like this one. In seven it went to the Supreme Court within three weeks, on day 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 13 and 21. No request in this record came later than day 21, so the answer will most likely come within the next six weeks.

The type of ruling matters too, and here it points against a quick request. When an appeals court refused to pause an order that was already stopping the government, a request followed every time, five out of five, always within thirteen days. When a court decided the appeal itself and the ruling had not yet taken effect, a request followed twice out of six, for Haiti in and Venezuela in . The detention rulings and the asylum ban went the slow, ordinary route and are still on it.

The Boston ruling is in the slower group. The policy has been running since the First Circuit lifted the first block on . The new ruling does not take effect until the court sends its formal order to the lower court, and under its rules that comes after the window to ask for a new hearing closes on . So the government loses nothing by waiting. This changes if that order comes early, or if the court ends its March pause. The government would then be where it was in the five cases that all brought a fast request.

Disclaimer

Hunch works only from sources that are publicly available, and publishes on the basis of analysis of that material. We do not form an editorial opinion or take sides, we give a simpler and wider view of news that already exists. If information in a source we used was inaccurate, distorted, or later disputed but had already entered our analysis, Hunch accepts no liability for that. Predictions are not advice. Phase 1 markets use Hunch Points, not money.

Published by Hunch under the Editorial Code. Complaints and corrections: /contact/.

Comment

Comments are moderated. Members post under their prediction record.
Hunch
Intuition based on experience

Read

Topics

Company

Legal

© Krok Group Ltd 2026. HUNCH is a registered trade mark of Krok Group Ltd (UK00004388957). Company No. 17183343 · ICO 00015312087 · Registered in England & Wales. Hunch Points carry no monetary value and cannot be exchanged for money or prizes. Forecasting is free to all registered readers.

Some cookies are essential for Hunch to work properly. Others are optional—you decide whether to allow them. We don’t sell your personal data. Learn more and change your choices at any time in Cookie settings.