Published September 21, 2026 at 5:00 AM ET · Updated September 24, 2026 at 2:08 PM ET
Blanche vows Supreme Court appeal after court blocks third-country deportations
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by ProPublica. Verification: Confirmed (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
A court has blocked third-country deportations. Todd Blanche has vowed to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 10 d ago, when ProPublica reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 6 d ago from Washington Examiner.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Under Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, an alien who has entered the United States cannot be removed without due process, at minimum notice and a meaningful chance to be heard. A. A. R. P. v. Trump held that notice roughly a day before removal, with no information on how to contest it, fails that requirement. The appeal turns on whether third-country removals gave detainees this minimum process.
Kaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher, Immigrant and Chinese Inspector (The Japanese Immigrant Case) 189 U.S. 86 (1903)
Vote: Majority for the Court (Harlan); Brewer and Peckham dissenting. Exact 7-2 tally not… · Opinion: Harlan
Although Congress may commit exclusion and deportation to executive officers without judicial trial, an alien who has landed and become part of the U.S.
A. A. R. P. v. Trump, President of the United States 605 U.S. ___ (2025) (per curiam)
Vote: 7-2 · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
The Court (having intervened by an extraordinary post-midnight order on April 19, 2025 barring removals from the Northern District of Texas) held: (1) it had jurisdiction because the district court's inaction in the face of imminent removals had the practical effect of refusing an injunction; (2) on notice, the government's practice flunked due process — 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster' under Trump v.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
