Judge bars removals of detained Afghans to Afghanistan or Pakistan after planned flight is grounded

A federal judge in Manhattan on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from deporting Afghans to Afghanistan or Pakistan for the rest of the week. The order came hours before a charter flight with about 150 detained Afghans was expected to leave Louisiana for Pakistan. Senior U.S. District Judge Valerie Caproni acted after a government lawyer said Immigration and Customs Enforcement had no Afghan flight planned or confirmed this week. The government agreed to be held to that promise.

The ruling is temporary and narrow. It does not decide whether the removals are lawful. It does not free anyone from detention, and it does not cancel the plan to route Afghans through Pakistan. It simply turns a promise from government lawyers into a court order for a few days while the case moves ahead. The government's response to the lawsuit is due Thursday, Nov. 5, according to USA Today's account of the court records.

As of 7:20 p.m. Eastern on Tuesday, 567politics had not been able to open the order or the docket itself. This account relies on reporting by USA Today, Bloomberg Law, The Washington Sun and CBS News, which quoted the filings, and on documents that 567politics opened directly: the Nov. 2 letter from 66 members of Congress and the Justice Department's Supreme Court brief defending the administration's third-country removal policy.

What the judge ordered

Caproni sits in the Southern District of New York. According to USA Today, she wrote that the government "has effectively represented that no Afghanistan nationals will be deported from the United States to Afghanistan or Pakistan this week," and barred it from carrying out such removals through Nov. 7. Bloomberg Law described the order as a temporary restraining order blocking removals to Pakistan and Afghanistan at least until Saturday. The Washington Sun reported that the Afghans could not be removed "until at least Sunday." The outlets differ by a day. The text of the order will settle it once it is public.

The turn came in the courtroom. USA Today reported that a government lawyer relayed word from a senior ICE official that the agency had "no planned or confirmed chartered or commercial flights" for Afghans this week, and that such flights take weeks to arrange. The government agreed to be held to that statement, and the judge's order rests on it.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday by Project Rousseau, a New York nonprofit that provides immigrant legal services, on behalf of Afghan clients who had been told they could be removed as early as Tuesday. The Washington Sun quoted the complaint's central claim about the route through Pakistan: "Even if the removal from Pakistan to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan does happen, it will be a transfer between two warring parties. This creates additional grave risk of persecution, torture, and death."

Andrew Heinrich, a supervising attorney at Project Rousseau, told USA Today that there was "some confusion at the very least, if not discrepancy" between what the government said in Manhattan and what it had said elsewhere.

A flight that the government's own filings had described

That discrepancy is the heart of the dispute over what the government knew and when. Before Tuesday's hearing, several sworn filings in other federal courts had described a specific operation.

CBS News reported that Sergio Aguilar, a supervisory detention and deportation officer at ICE, wrote in an Oct. 30 declaration that "the plane's final destination would be Pakistan with further transport onward to Afghanistan." He said he had first thought the charter would land in Afghanistan. The man in that case was assigned to a special charter set to leave from Alexandria, Louisiana. The declaration was filed in Sadat v. Mullin, a case in Virginia before U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, who had ordered officials to explain whether the plane would fly directly to Afghanistan or stop in Pakistan. CBS reported that Said Mansor Sadat, the 30-year-old Afghan in that case, was later removed from the flight list and released after a judge ruled that his continued detention violated due process.

USA Today reported that ICE officials and federal prosecutors had also told courts in Texas and Oklahoma that Afghan detainees were scheduled for a flight in the first week of November. In one of those cases, CBS reported, U.S. District Judge Kathleen Cardone in El Paso wrote in an Oct. 15 order that ICE had acknowledged a detainee had been "nominated for an Afghanistan removal mission tentatively scheduled for early November." Cardone denied that detainee's request for emergency relief on Oct. 29, ruling that the district court lacked jurisdiction to halt his removal. A judge in Louisiana denied a similar request from another Afghan on Oct. 30.

Those rulings show why Caproni's order matters to the people in detention. Federal law sharply limits district courts' power to stop removals. Several judges had already declined to step in. The Manhattan order did not have to answer that question, because the government said there was nothing to stop this week.

The size of the planned operation has been reported in slightly different ways. The 66 House members wrote that "over 150 Afghans could be deported to Afghanistan in the coming days." USA Today, citing Shawn VanDiver of the advocacy group #AfghanEvac, put the number at about 150 and said the plane had been scheduled to leave Alexandria around 7 p.m. on Election Day. CBS reported, citing an unnamed U.S. official, that the administration had planned to deport "nearly 200" Afghans through Pakistan and that the plans were still in flux.

1. Oct 15Texas judge's order notes an Afghan detainee was nominated for a removal mission in early November
2. Oct 26Bloomberg Law reports plans to deport Afghans to Pakistan
3. Oct 29El Paso judge rules the court lacks jurisdiction to halt one removal
4. Oct 30ICE officer's sworn declaration says the charter's final destination is Pakistan
5. Oct 31Rubio refers questions on the flight to DHS
6. Nov 266 House members write to Rubio and Mullin; Taliban foreign ministry voices concern; Project Rousseau sues
7. Nov 3Government says no Afghan flights this week; Caproni bars removals to Afghanistan or Pakistan
8. Nov 5Government's response to the lawsuit due
9. Nov 7Order's end date as reported by USA Today

Source: USA Today, CBS News, Rep. Scott Peters letter

Who might have been on the plane

Little is officially known about the passengers, because the government has not released a manifest. In a statement quoted by USA Today, the Department of Homeland Security said it "does not comment on prospective removal operations, including flight schedules, passenger manifests, destinations, or individual case details."

Advocates and lawmakers have filled part of the gap. USA Today reported that attorneys and advocates said the people facing removal included women, LGBTQ+ people and members of religious and ethnic minorities. The House letter made the same point. "We have heard that there could be women and LGBTQ persons on this flight; if they are deported to Afghanistan, they will face extreme danger." The letter said LGBTQ people in Afghanistan, "where their status is largely criminalized, are routinely targeted for abuse and sexual violence," and described Afghanistan as "the most repressive country in the world" for women.

USA Today reported that #AfghanEvac was tracking at least one man slated for the flight who served alongside American troops and about 15 others whose relatives did, though VanDiver cautioned that the count could change. VanDiver also said many of the roughly 150 had final orders of removal, several were detained after routine ICE check-ins, and most went through the asylum system alone or found lawyers too late.

The newspaper described one of them, a former university student whose name it withheld. He testified that Taliban fighters detained and beat him after the 2021 takeover, accusing him of helping their enemies. An immigration judge denied his asylum claim in July 2025, citing gaps between his testimony and his parents' written statements. He represented himself on appeal. "If I return," he told the court, "they will kill me."

The backdrop is an asylum system that has become much harder to win in. USA Today cited data from the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University. Immigration judges denied 94.5% of the asylum cases they decided in September, the highest rate in nearly three decades. And 279 immigration judges have been fired or resigned since fall 2024. 567politics has separately examined how federal deportation totals and their makeup are disputed.

Why Pakistan is in the middle

The United States closed its embassy in Kabul in 2021 and does not recognize the Taliban government, which complicates any direct removal to Afghanistan. A senior official at the Afghan Refugees Commissionerate spoke to ABC News. The official said Pakistan handles the transit because Afghanistan has no formal agreement with the United States. Afghan detainees sent to Pakistan are taken to the border in bulletproof buses, the official said.

#AfghanEvac's campaign page argues that this route amounts to removal to a country no judge approved. "Their removal orders do not name Pakistan," the group writes. In the Virginia case, it adds, "the removal order in that case names Afghanistan." Its broader claim is that "delivery to Pakistan is, in practice, delivery to the Taliban," because Pakistan has been expelling Afghans across the border for two years.

Relations between Pakistan and the Taliban have become openly hostile. USA Today reported that Pakistan's defense minister declared "open war" in February after cross-border attacks and airstrikes, and that key crossings have stayed largely closed except for expelling Afghans. Even the Taliban objected. In a Nov. 2 statement, Afghanistan's foreign ministry said that "third countries should not bargain over the transfer of another country's nationals in pursuit of short-term, limited concessions or other considerations," according to CBS News.

Washington is not alone in exploring removals to Afghanistan. France has confirmed contacts with Taliban authorities on returning Afghans, as 567politics reported in its story on France's talks with the Taliban about deportations.

The administration's position

The administration has not defended this particular flight in public. When Secretary of State Marco Rubio was asked about it at an Oct. 31 news conference, he directed the question to DHS, according to both USA Today and CBS. A State Department spokesman told ABC News that "all countries must be able to manage their borders and immigration processes in a manner that ensures the safety, security, and prosperity of their citizens."

DHS is led by Secretary Markwayne Mullin. It declined to discuss the flights, citing operational security. But a spokesperson defended its wider practice to CBS: "Illegal aliens being sent to a third country receive notice and assurances prior to their removal." The spokesperson said ICE gets diplomatic assurances that deportees will be safe. The spokesperson added, "When an individual is no longer in ICE custody, ICE is no longer responsible for them." CBS reported that DHS did not say whether Pakistan had given assurances for this operation.

The fullest statement of the government's legal view is in its merits brief in DHS v. D.V.D., a Supreme Court case over the department's March 2025 guidance on third-country removals. The brief says the rules on removal "are a sovereign prerogative largely committed to the political branches." It says Congress gave the executive "significant discretion in selecting the country to which an alien with a final order of removal will be sent." And it notes that Congress "imposed stringent bars on judicial review." It says that before the policy, people who could not be sent home "often were released," and that swift removal is essential because "finding a willing country often entails delicate diplomatic negotiations that would be undermined by lengthy delays."

That case is about removals to countries not named in a removal order. The Afghans' orders name Afghanistan, and the government's filings call Pakistan a stop on the way. So it is not yet clear which legal theory the government will use when it answers the suit on Thursday.

Pressure from Congress and advocates

The House letter, dated Nov. 2 and led by Rep. Scott Peters, a California Democrat, was signed by 66 members and addressed to Rubio and Mullin. It urged them to "cancel any deportation flights of Afghans and Iranians, either directly or through any other country," and said it had received "credible reports" that the Afghan flight would be followed by a mass deportation of Iranians.$

"Sending dozens of people back to one of the most dangerous countries on earth, and where they are likely to be targeted for their or their family's suspected support of the U.S. government or criticism of the Taliban, is a death sentence," the members wrote. On the legal point before the court, they argued that the United States "is also bound not to return anyone to a country where they would face torture, and that obligation does not disappear because a flight makes a stop along the way." The letter also asked the administration to tell Pakistan that the United States would not accept its participation, and noted that U.S. law allows sanctions on foreign officials who aid serious human rights abuses.

At a news conference on Tuesday, Peters said, according to USA Today: "Our nation made a promise to stand by the Afghans who risked their lives and their family safety for us. Sending them to the Taliban breaks that promise." The 567politics funding snapshot for Peters uses Federal Election Commission data for the 2026 cycle. It shows no donations tied to a topic in this story. The site's topic list does not yet cover immigration.

USA Today reported that more than 900 people called or wrote officials before the flight. #AfghanEvac's site promotes a poll it commissioned with HIAS from Lake Research Partners and The Tarrance Group, of 1,000 likely 2026 voters surveyed July 23 to 30. Because the poll was paid for by advocacy groups and 567politics has not reviewed the full questionnaire, the results below should be read as the sponsors' reported findings, not an independent measure.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Oppose deporting Afghans who assisted U.S. forces to countries they have no ties to63%

Support letting Afghan allies stay while their cases are processed73%

Say the U.S. should keep its commitment to Afghans who stood with it84%

Oppose deporting Afghans who assisted U.S. forces to countries they have no ties toSupport letting Afghan allies stay while their cases are processedSay the U.S. should keep its commitment to Afghans who stood with it

Source: #AfghanEvac, Stop the Flight page (Lake Research Partners and The Tarrance Group for AfghanEvac and HIAS)

Show the numbers

Position	Share of likely voters
Oppose deporting Afghans who assisted U.S. forces to countries they have no ties to	63%
Support letting Afghan allies stay while their cases are processed	73%
Say the U.S. should keep its commitment to Afghans who stood with it	84%

The group is also pushing the Afghanistan TPS Act, which it describes as bipartisan legislation (H.R. 9899 and S. 5308) that would protect Afghans already in the United States from return through July 1, 2029. It says a House discharge petition to force a vote ripens on Nov. 9, when Congress returns, and needs 218 signatures.

A wider third-country program

The Afghan case sits inside a much larger effort. Al Jazeera reported that the administration has agreements with at least 35 countries to accept people deported from the United States, and that at least 25,000 people have been sent to third countries, according to Refugees International and Human Rights First. It also noted that more than 120,000 Afghans were evacuated in 2021, and that President Trump halted Afghan immigration applications after the November 2025 shooting of National Guard members in Washington.

Savi Arvey directs policy on refugee and immigrant rights at Human Rights First. She told USA Today the planned flight was "really unprecedented and egregious." Her group tracks deportation flights. She said it had never seen the United States try to deport so many Afghans at once.

Federal courts have been an active check on immigration enforcement this fall, with mixed results. A federal judge in Oregon recently found that ICE kept making warrantless arrests in violation of a court order, and a Maryland judge ordered USCIS to restore notice for unaccompanied children's asylum interviews. For the broader policy picture, see 567politics' US immigration issue guide.

Where the sides disagree

Supporters of the administration say Congress gave the executive wide latitude over where people with final removal orders go. They say courts have little power to step in. And they say diplomatic assurances and fear screening meet the country's humanitarian duties. They argue that without workable third-country routes, people who cannot be sent home are often released.

Critics include the 66 House members, #AfghanEvac and Project Rousseau. They say a stop in Pakistan does not change the destination: Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. There, former U.S. partners, their relatives, women and LGBTQ people face persecution. They argue that the anti-torture obligation applies regardless of the route and that many of the detainees never had a meaningful asylum hearing.

The Taliban government, which the United States does not recognize, has voiced "deep concern" about transfers to Pakistan while saying it is "ready to engage constructively" with Washington, according to ABC News.

What comes next

The government's written response is due Thursday, Nov. 5. The order runs through Nov. 7 by USA Today's account. VanDiver told USA Today that the plan has not been withdrawn and that ICE has told some detainees the flight will now leave in a week or two. "Pressure got the plane grounded. The court makes sure it stays grounded," he said.

Open questions include whether Pakistan has given diplomatic assurances, whether the government will argue that the district court lacks jurisdiction, as other judges have found in individual cases, and whether the reported Iranian removals proceed. 567politics will update this story when the order, the government's response or a new flight date becomes public.

Differing perspectives

Should the United States deport detained Afghans to Afghanistan by way of Pakistan?

Each position is summarized as its supporters make it, with equal weight and in alphabetical order. A summary is not an endorsement; the evidence for each is weighed in the story above.

• A stop in Pakistan does not end the torture bar

  Who holds it: 66 House members led by Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.)

  The lawmakers say sending dozens of Afghans to one of the world's most dangerous countries, where they may be targeted for their own or relatives' ties to the U.S. government, is a death sentence. They say the United States is bound not to return anyone to a country where they would face torture, and that obligation does not disappear because a flight stops along the way. They warn women and LGBTQ people may be aboard and urge cancelling all such flights.

  In their words: Letter from 66 members of Congress to Secretaries Rubio and Mullin, Nov. 2, 2026 ↗

• Delivery to Pakistan means delivery to the Taliban

  Who holds it: #AfghanEvac and Afghan ally advocates

  AfghanEvac says the detainees' removal orders name Afghanistan, not Pakistan, so no judge approved the route, and that Pakistan has spent two years expelling Afghans across the border. Many detainees are relatives of people who served with U.S. troops, and the Taliban hunts such families. The group argues the administration is acting in secret, urges Congress to pass the bipartisan Afghanistan TPS Act, and says sending people there is not a deportation but a sentence.

  In their words: #AfghanEvac, Stop the Flight ↗

• Executive discretion over removals

  Who holds it: Trump administration (Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department)

  The government says removal decisions are a sovereign prerogative committed largely to the political branches, and that Congress gave the executive significant discretion to choose where people with final removal orders are sent while sharply limiting judicial review. Diplomatic assurances and prompt fear screening, it argues, meet the country's humanitarian obligations. Without workable third-country routes, people who cannot be sent home are often released, and lengthy court delays would undermine the delicate diplomacy needed to find willing countries.

  In their words: Brief for the Petitioners, DHS v. D.V.D. (U.S. Supreme Court, No. 26-426) ↗