A federal judge in New York has temporarily barred the Trump administration from deporting detained Afghan nationals to either Afghanistan or Pakistan. District Judge Valerie Caproni issued the directive on Tuesday, pausing scheduled transfers until at least Saturday. The emergency ruling followed mounting alarms from immigrant rights organizations, legal counsel, and members of Congress, who warned that forced removals could place individuals in direct danger of retaliation, torture, or death. The intervention came directly before planned departures from federal detention facilities.
Court Proceedings and Flight Status
During court proceedings on Tuesday, attorneys representing the US government stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had not organized any imminent deportation flights for detained Afghans. Government officials confirmed that no chartered flights or commercial arrangements to Afghanistan or Pakistan were in place through the end of the current week. Judge Caproni incorporated that commitment into a binding judicial directive, ordering federal authorities to maintain that posture until Saturday, effectively preventing any immediate deportations during this window.
Court filings disclosed that administrative preparations had initially targeted Monday for removals. The documentation detailed planned flights departing from Louisiana, where ICE operates major processing and detention facilities. Those schedules designated Pakistan as the disembarkation point. Because the enforcement agency typically books and coordinates air operations several weeks in advance, the immediate confirmation of planned routing became the focal point of the legal challenge and subsequent court order.
Detainees at Risk and Lack of Legal Counsel
Advocacy groups and immigration attorneys reported that more than 80 detained Afghan nationals reached out for emergency assistance after receiving formal notifications from ICE. The detainees indicated that enforcement agents had warned them of imminent removal through Pakistan within days. Among those slated for deportation were women, a former police officer, religious minorities, and several individuals with direct family connections to the US military. Organizations including Human Rights First and AfghanEvac emphasized that the overwhelming majority of these detainees lacked formal legal representation to fight their removals.
Thousands of Afghans had fled their homeland after providing assistance to the US military, governmental agencies, and humanitarian groups. Many of those individuals have consistently voiced fears of severe persecution, having risked their lives in support of foreign missions. Legal advocates argued that returning vulnerable individuals under current conditions would violate fundamental protections against refoulement.
Congressional Pushback to Executive Leadership
The deportation plan also drew immediate resistance from Capitol Hill. Led by California Democratic Representative Scott Peters, a formal letter signed by 65 members of the House of Representatives and the Senate voiced urgent objections to the scheduled flights. The lawmakers expressed deep concern over placing vulnerable individuals at imminent risk of persecution, torture, or execution upon removal.
The correspondence was delivered on Monday to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin. The lawmakers urged the executive branch to uphold commitments made to Afghan allies, stressing that individuals who assisted American efforts should not be routed to perilous environments without rigorous review and safeguards.
Third-Country Removal Policies and Foreign Objections
The Trump administration has routinely used third-country removals, sending thousands of migrants to nations other than their places of origin when repatriation directly to their home country proves diplomatically or logistically unfeasible. Legal filings referenced limitations in instances where the United States maintains no formal diplomatic relations, citing the Taliban-led administration in Afghanistan as an example. Third-party transfers have also been employed as a mechanism for broader immigration deterrence.
The proposal also prompted official objections from Afghanistan prior to the judge's order. Zia Ahmad Takal, deputy spokesman for the foreign ministry, conveyed the administration's stance. Takal stated that the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan expresses serious concern over accounts indicating US plans to transfer Afghans to Pakistan. Takal argued that Washington should base its decisions on human rights and legitimate demands, emphasizing that third-party nations should not determine the fate of another sovereign country's citizens.
Advocacy Groups Monitor Air Traffic
While welcoming the court's intervention, immigrant rights advocates cautioned that the legal reprieve is only temporary. Shawn VanDiver, president of AfghanEvac, emphasized at a press briefing that the community must remain vigilant. VanDiver said, "Today is a good day," but cautioned that the decision represents a temporary reprieve rather than a permanent resolution, noting that groups would continue to track flight manifests and enforcement actions.
Savitri Arvey, director of policy for refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First, outlined the specific dangers awaiting those forced back. Arvey stated that individuals returned to Afghanistan face arbitrary detentions, summary executions, public flogging, and retaliatory violence. Arvey noted that the stakes were exceptionally high, pointing out that women and young girls endure total prohibitions on higher education, formal employment, and public expression. Advocates also questioned the lack of transparent arrangements between Washington and Islamabad regarding Pakistan's cooperation in receiving transferees, pledging continuous flight monitoring to prevent surprise departures.
