Federal Judge Blocks DHS Third-Country Deportation Policy Requiring Advance Notice

Court Halts Rapid Removals to Non-Origin Countries, Pauses Enforcement for 15 Days Pending Appeal and Clarifies Due Process Requirements

Feb 26, 2026

On February 25, 2026, a federal district judge entered a written order blocking the U.S. Department of Homeland Security from enforcing a policy that allowed expedited removals of non-citizens to countries other than their country of origin without advance notice and without a meaningful opportunity to object. The injunction pauses implementation for fifteen days to permit appeal.

The case arose after DHS issued internal guidance authorizing Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to remove certain migrants to “third countries” when direct repatriation was not immediately available. Under the policy, individuals could be placed on removal flights to nations with which they had no prior ties. Plaintiffs challenged the practice under the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Due Process Clause, arguing that affected individuals were not receiving notice of the destination country or a fair chance to raise fear-based claims.

In its opinion, the court found that the guidance conflicted with statutory procedures governing removal, particularly those requiring individualized review and access to asylum screening when a person expresses fear of return. The court held that the absence of advance notice and the truncated review process likely violated federal law. Enforcement is suspended while the Department of Justice determines whether to seek a stay from the appellate court.

The injunction does not vacate underlying removal orders. It halts implementation of this specific directive pending further review.

DHS Policy Memorandum Authorizing Third-Country Removals

The contested policy was issued by DHS leadership through an enforcement memorandum circulated to ICE field offices. The memorandum instructed officers that, in cases where removal to a migrant’s country of nationality was delayed or diplomatically unavailable, DHS could execute removal to an alternative country willing to accept transfer. The directive relied on 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), which outlines permissible countries of removal after a final order.

Ordinarily, the statute sets a hierarchy: the country of nationality, the country of last habitual residence, or other designated countries under specified conditions. The litigation centered on whether DHS had complied with statutory prerequisites and procedural protections when designating a third country.

Plaintiffs submitted declarations describing removal notices that lacked identification of the destination country until shortly before departure. In several instances, individuals were transported before counsel could file emergency motions. The court concluded that the guidance altered long-standing practice by accelerating removal without formal notice sufficient to invoke statutory protections.

The order directs DHS to provide advance written notice of any intended third-country removal and an opportunity for the individual to seek protection or judicial review before execution.

Department of Justice Appeal Window and 15-Day Stay Period

The court stayed its injunction for fifteen days to allow the Department of Justice to pursue appellate relief. During this period, DHS may not carry out removals under the challenged directive unless the injunction is stayed by a higher court.

This procedural posture mirrors earlier litigation involving enforcement surge operations in multiple federal districts. In Minnesota last month, a federal judge ordered ICE leadership to appear and address compliance questions tied to release and bond determinations. In Texas, separate litigation challenged expedited removals executed under emergency authority. Both cases involve judicial oversight of removal processes during periods of intensified enforcement.

If the government files an emergency motion for stay at the circuit court, appellate judges will weigh the likelihood of success on appeal and the risk of irreparable harm. If no stay issues, DHS must modify procedures nationwide to align with the injunction’s notice requirements.

287(g) Jail Enforcement Model Agreements in Kentucky

Although the case originated outside Kentucky, the injunction affects operational decisions in counties that coordinate closely with ICE. In March 2025, the Oldham County Detention Center entered two Memoranda of Agreement under the federal 287(g) program: the Jail Enforcement Model and the Warrant Service Officer program. The agreements authorize trained local officers to perform certain immigration-related functions under ICE supervision while individuals remain in local custody.

Under the Jail Enforcement Model, jail staff may screen individuals for immigration status, issue detainers under federal authority, and begin paperwork associated with removal proceedings. The governing Memorandum of Agreement specifies that participating counties operate “under the direction and supervision of ICE.”

If federal policy concerning removal destinations changes, local facilities must adjust documentation practices and transfer protocols. A removal to a third country requires accurate record-keeping, coordination on travel documents, and confirmation that statutory steps were satisfied. The injunction therefore affects how Kentucky jails document notice, hold timelines, and coordinate with ICE field offices.

Oldham County Fiscal Court does not sign the 287(g) MOA itself; the elected jailer executes it. However, Fiscal Court appropriates funds for detention operations and bears responsibility for county facilities and staff. Changes in federal removal procedures can alter detention length, staffing demands, and exposure to civil claims.

Other Kentucky counties housing ICE detainees or participating in federal contracts face similar adjustments. Facilities in Boone, Kenton, Campbell, and Grayson counties have maintained federal detention agreements at various points over the past decade. Each agreement references compliance with federal law and ICE policy directives.

Kentucky Courts, County Detainers, and Federal Removal Timelines

When ICE issues a detainer under 8 C.F.R. § 287.7, local jails may hold an individual up to 48 hours beyond release from state custody to permit federal pickup. The timing of removal flights, notice, and transfer documentation intersects with state court proceedings, including bond hearings and sentencing orders.

If a third-country removal were scheduled without clear notice, defense counsel in Kentucky could seek emergency relief in federal court. The injunction clarifies that advance written notice is required nationwide before execution of such removals. Kentucky residents, including lawful permanent residents or asylum seekers with pending claims, therefore retain a documented opportunity to challenge destination designation.

The Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy represents indigent defendants in state criminal proceedings but does not provide immigration representation. Individuals in removal proceedings rely on private counsel or nonprofit legal services. The American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky and Catholic Charities of Louisville have previously assisted with immigration-related filings when rapid enforcement actions occur.

County judges and jail administrators monitor federal litigation because changes in ICE practice affect daily intake and release procedures. The Administrative Office of the Courts may issue guidance if federal rulings alter timelines that intersect with state custody.

Share this analysis of the federal court ruling and its impact on Kentucky detention operations.

Documented Enforcement Litigation in Multiple Federal Districts

The injunction reflects a series of judicial interventions during the past year. In Minnesota, a federal court ordered ICE leadership to respond to compliance allegations tied to bond determinations during an enforcement surge. In the Northern District of California, plaintiffs challenged removals executed without individualized fear interviews. In the District of Columbia, advocacy groups filed suit over alleged deviations from asylum screening requirements.

Each case references statutory sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act and implementing regulations in 8 C.F.R. Part 208 and Part 241. Courts have focused on procedural compliance rather than underlying enforcement authority. The present injunction continues that pattern.

The Department of Homeland Security retains authority to remove individuals subject to final orders. The dispute concerns whether destination designation and timing comply with statutory notice provisions and due-process standards.

What Changes Operationally in Kentucky Facilities

For Kentucky detention centers that coordinate with ICE, the immediate effect is procedural clarity. Any planned third-country removal must include documented advance notice and an opportunity to seek judicial review. Transfer paperwork must reflect compliance with the injunction.

If removal schedules are delayed while appellate review proceeds, detention length may increase. Counties with federal per-diem contracts will monitor hold durations closely. Fiscal Court budget projections that assume specific turnover rates may require adjustment if removal timelines shift.

County attorneys will review the injunction to assess potential exposure in cases where individuals allege improper notice. Jailers may update intake and detainer forms to ensure written documentation aligns with federal court directives.

What Happens Next in the Appellate Process

Within fifteen days of the injunction, the Department of Justice may file a notice of appeal and seek an emergency stay from the circuit court. If the appellate court grants a stay, DHS could resume enforcement of the directive pending appeal. If the stay is denied, DHS must revise guidance nationwide while litigation proceeds.

Briefing schedules in federal appellate courts typically extend several months. A final ruling may clarify statutory interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2) and define notice requirements for alternative country removals.

Kentucky counties participating in 287(g) agreements will monitor federal guidance updates issued by ICE field offices. Any revision to the enforcement memorandum will be transmitted through supervisory channels outlined in the Memoranda of Agreement.

Dispatches from Kentucky

Discussion about this post

Ready for more?