Trump policy allowing swift deportations to alternate countries rejected by US judge
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Mr Murphy set aside the policy and declared that migrants who had been subject to it had a right to meaningful notice and a chance to raise objections to being deported to third countries.
PHOTO: REUTERS
BOSTON - A federal judge on Feb 25 ruled that the Trump administration had adopted an unlawful policy
US District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued a final ruling declaring the US Department of Homeland Security’s policy invalid in a case that the administration expects will ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court.
The policy, which was adopted in March 2025 as part of Republican President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, failed to protect the due process rights of migrants who without notice could be swiftly deported to “an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country,” Mr Murphy said.
Mr Murphy said the administration had argued it would be “fine” for immigration officers under that policy to quickly deport people to so-called third countries they did not come from as long as DHS does not know someone is waiting to kill them upon their arrival.
“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” wrote Mr Murphy, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden.
Decision on hold pending likely appeal
The judge set aside the policy and declared that migrants who had been subject to it had a right to meaningful notice and a chance to raise objections to being deported to third countries.
But he paused his ruling from taking effect for 15 days to allow the administration time to pursue an appeal, citing the case’s “importance and its unusual history”.
He noted the Supreme Court’s earlier interventions in the case.
The court previously lifted a preliminary injunction Mr Murphy issued in April protecting the due process rights of migrants facing deportation to third countries and later cleared the way for eight men to be sent to South Sudan.
While it was in effect, that earlier injunction hindered the administration’s efforts to send migrants to countries other than their places of origin, including South Sudan, Libya and El Salvador.
A spokesperson for DHS, in a statement, pointed to the Supreme Court’s earlier rulings in its favor in the case and said the department was “confident we will be vindicated again”.
“DHS must be allowed to execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them,” the DHS spokesperson said.
Feb 25’s ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of migrants facing deportation to countries not previously named in their removal orders or identified in their immigration court proceedings.
The policy allows migrants to be deported to such countries if immigration authorities either have credible diplomatic assurances they will not be persecuted or tortured if sent there, or have given the migrants as little as six hours of notice that they are being sent to such a place.
Ms Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, called Mr Murphy’s ruling “a forceful statement from the court that the administration’s third-country removal policy is unconstitutional”.
“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Ms Realmuto said in a statement.
Department of Justice lawyers had argued the policy satisfied immigration law requirements and due process standards and was essential for deporting migrants whose home countries refused them due to crimes they committed. REUTERS
