Trump administration’s ‘third country’ deportation policy is unlawful, judge rules

A federal judge has struck down the Trump administration’s controversial policy of deporting immigrants to “third countries” where they have no ties, ruling the practice unlawful in the latest development of a high-profile immigration case.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued the ruling Wednesday in Massachusetts, determining that immigrants have the right to “meaningful notice” and an opportunity to challenge their removal before being sent to unfamiliar nations. The judge has suspended his decision for 15 days, allowing the government time to appeal.

“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,'” Murphy wrote in his decision.

The case has already traveled to the Supreme Court, which ruled in the administration’s favor last year. That decision paused Murphy’s previous ruling and allowed a flight carrying several migrants to complete its journey to South Sudan, a war-torn nation where the deportees had no connections.

The current legal challenge centers on the Department of Homeland Security’s policy regarding “third-country removals,” which Murphy argues effectively prevents migrants from challenging their deportation by removing them before they can raise objections. The policy has particularly targeted immigrants who had previously received protection from deportation to their home countries due to credible fears of torture or persecution.

According to court documents, the Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to circumvent the judge’s previous orders. Murphy noted that last March, the Defense Department deported at least six individuals to El Salvador and Mexico without providing the process required under his temporary restraining order. Just two days after that order, DHS issued new policy guidance for third-country removals.

“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,” wrote Murphy, who was nominated to the bench by President Biden.

Immigration enforcement has been a cornerstone of Trump administration policies, with officials pursuing aggressive measures to increase deportations. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has stated that the eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the United States and had final orders of removal.

The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between immigration enforcement priorities and due process protections. While the Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled in June that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries, liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing the ruling gives the government special treatment in immigration cases.

Immigration advocates have criticized third-country removals as particularly cruel, noting that deportees often lack language skills, cultural knowledge, or support networks in countries where they have no ties. Human rights organizations have also raised concerns about the dangers posed to deportees sent to unstable regions like South Sudan, which continues to experience armed conflict and humanitarian crises.

The 15-day pause on Judge Murphy’s ruling creates a window for potential intervention by higher courts, including the Supreme Court, which has already weighed in on this case. The outcome will have significant implications for U.S. immigration enforcement practices and the constitutional protections afforded to non-citizens facing deportation.

The case represents another chapter in the ongoing legal battles surrounding immigration policy that have defined much of the current administration’s approach to border security and enforcement.