WASHINGTON — A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy allowing the deportation of migrants to “third countries” without prior notice or the opportunity to object is unlawful.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued the ruling Wednesday, siding with a class-action lawsuit filed by noncitizens. The decision effectively sets aside a cornerstone of the Trump administration’s mass deportation strategy, which sought to remove individuals to nations other than their own—including Costa Rica, Panama, and Rwanda—without traditional due process protections. Judge Murphy has stayed the ruling for 15 days to allow the administration to file an appeal.
A Violation of Due Process
The core of the legal dispute centers on a policy implemented last March. Under those guidelines, immigration officers were not required to inform migrants of their destination or allow them to contest the removal, provided the U.S. government received “assurances” from the receiving country that the individual would not face torture or persecution.
Judge Murphy, a Biden appointee, was scathing in his assessment of the policy’s legality. He argued that the administration’s reliance on opaque “assurances” failed to meet constitutional standards.
“This new policy—which purports to stand in for the protections Congress has mandated—fails to satisfy due process for a raft of reasons,” Murphy wrote. “These are basic questions that the Constitution permits a person to ask before the Government takes away their last and only lifeline.”
Key Elements of the Disputed Policy:
Lack of Affirmative Inquiry: Officers were instructed not to ask migrants if they feared the third country; the burden was on the migrant to “affirmatively” state a fear.
Third-Country Agreements: The administration sought deals with various nations to accept non-citizens, including an arrangement to house Venezuelan migrants in El Salvador’s “CECOT” mega-prison.
Bypassing Designated Countries: The policy allowed removals to countries not originally listed on an immigrant’s formal order of removal.
Allegations of Deception and Misconduct
The ruling went beyond legal interpretation, with Judge Murphy accusing the Trump administration of providing false information to the court regarding a Guatemalan national identified as O.C.G.
According to the court, O.C.G. had been granted legal protection against being returned to Guatemala. In response, the government allegedly “threw him on a bus to Mexico,” where he was reportedly raped before being sent back to the very country where an immigration judge had determined he would face persecution.
“And then Defendants lied about it,” Murphy stated, further alleging that the administration “repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate” court orders throughout the proceedings.
White House and DHS Vow to Appeal
The Trump administration quickly condemned the ruling, framing the policy as a necessary component of national security and the enforcement of federal law.
“The entire Trump Administration is working to lawfully deliver on President Trump’s mandate to… carry out the largest mass deportation campaign of criminal illegal aliens in history,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. She dismissed the decision as an “unlawful ruling by a lower court Biden judge.”
A DHS statement echoed this sentiment, expressing confidence that the administration would be “vindicated” by higher courts. The department emphasized its authority to “remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.”
The Road to the Supreme Court
This case has already seen significant activity in the higher courts. Last June, the Supreme Court issued emergency stays against Judge Murphy’s previous injunctions, allowing deportations to continue while the litigation proceeded.
One notable flashpoint involved a group of men from various nations—including Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam—who were nearly deported to war-torn South Sudan with less than 24 hours’ notice. They were eventually held at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti during a legal tug-of-war before the Supreme Court cleared the way for their removal.
With Murphy’s 15-day pause in effect, the administration is expected to seek another emergency stay from the appellate courts or the Supreme Court to prevent the policy from being officially vacated.
