Federal Judge Declares Trump's Third-Country Deportation Policy Unlawful
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that the Trump administration's controversial policy of deporting immigrants to "third countries" where they have no connections is unlawful and must be set aside. Judge Brian E. Murphy issued the decision on Wednesday, marking a significant legal setback for the administration's immigration enforcement strategies.
Judge Suspends Ruling for 15 Days to Allow Government Appeal
Judge Murphy agreed to suspend his decision for 15 days, providing the White House with time to appeal the latest ruling in this ongoing legal battle. This case has already reached the nation's highest court, where last year the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled in favor of the administration, allowing immigration officials to proceed with third-country deportations.
The judge emphasized that migrants challenging the Department of Homeland Security's policy have the fundamental right to "meaningful notice" and an opportunity to object before being removed to a third country. Murphy concluded that the current policy "extinguishes valid challenges to third-country removal by effecting removal before those challenges can be raised."
Due Process Concerns at the Heart of the Ruling
In his written opinion, Judge Murphy underscored the constitutional principles at stake, stating: "These are our laws, and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this court affirms these and our nation's bedrock principle: that no 'person' in this country may be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.'"
The judge noted that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated or attempted to violate his previous orders. He highlighted a specific instance from last March when the defense department deported at least six class members to El Salvador and Mexico without providing the process required under a temporary restraining order Murphy had issued.
Policy Targets Vulnerable Immigrants with Protection Status
According to the ruling, the Department of Homeland Security's third-country removal policy has specifically targeted immigrants who had been granted protection from being returned to their home countries, where they faced credible fears of torture or persecution. The policy guidance for these removals was issued on March 30, just two days after Murphy's previous order.
Judge Murphy, who was nominated to the bench by President Joe Biden, expressed frustration with the administration's lack of transparency, writing: "The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member's claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal."
Previous Deportations and Supreme Court Involvement
The case gained national attention last year when the Supreme Court ruled in the administration's favor, pausing Murphy's previous decision and allowing a flight carrying several migrants to complete its journey to war-torn South Sudan. The migrants had no ties to South Sudan, raising serious humanitarian concerns.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have stated that eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the United States and had final orders of removal. However, the judge's ruling focuses on the procedural violations rather than the individual circumstances of those deported.
When the Supreme Court ruled on this matter in June, liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the decision gave the government special treatment that undermined fundamental due process protections. The current ruling represents a significant development in this ongoing legal conflict over immigration enforcement procedures and constitutional rights.
