Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Browse

Federal Judge Rules Trump’s Third-Country Deportation Policy Unlawful

Federal Judge Rules Trump’s Third-Country Deportation Policy Unlawful
View gallery

A federal judge in Boston ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration’s fast‑track policy of deporting migrants to “third countries” where they have no ties is unlawful, finding it violates both immigration law and constitutional due‑process protections.cbsnews +1 The 81‑page decision by U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ordered the policy set aside but paused his own ruling for 15 days to give the government time to appeal.washingtonpost +1

The case targeted a Department of Homeland Security practice that allowed immigration authorities to send noncitizens with final removal orders to countries other than those listed on their court orders or their homelands, often on extremely short notice and without proactively screening for fear of persecution.nbcnews +1 The ruling came after months of litigation over deportation flights routed through countries such as South Sudan and Rwanda, and after the Supreme Court last year temporarily allowed some third‑country removals to proceed while the case was pending.abc7 +1

What the Judge Found Wrong With Third‑Country Deportations

Murphy concluded the program “extinguishes” migrants’ ability to mount a meaningful challenge to their removal, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Fifth Amendment.cnn +1 He held that, before sending someone to a third country, the government must first attempt to remove them to the country specified in their final order or designated by an immigration judge, provide “meaningful notice” of any planned third‑country transfer, and allow time to object.cnn +1

The judge criticized DHS for relying on secret diplomatic “assurances” from receiving governments about how deportees would be treated, writing that “nobody really knows anything” about these promises or why officials deemed them credible.nbcnews He emphasized that U.S. law and obligations under the U.N. Convention Against Torture bar removal to any country where a person’s “life or freedom would be threatened,” and said rapid transfers—sometimes within six hours of notice under 2025 ICE guidance—made that safeguard largely illusory.nbcnews +1

Legal and Political Fallout for Trump’s Immigration Agenda

Murphy’s order applies to noncitizens with final removal orders who have been or could be sent to third countries on or after Feb. 18, 2025, potentially affecting hundreds of people.nbcnews If upheld, it would force DHS and ICE to rewrite procedures, slow down removals, and make public more information about deals struck with countries willing to accept U.S. deportees, including South Sudan, Rwanda, and others.cnn +1 Senate Democrats have said the administration spent more than $32 million to persuade third countries to accept roughly 300 deportees under the program.cnn

The Department of Homeland Security signaled it would appeal, noting that the Supreme Court has twice granted emergency stays in the case and expressing confidence it would be “vindicated again.”cbsnews +1 Trump administration officials have defended third‑country removals as a lawful tool to protect public safety by expelling “dangerous criminal illegal aliens,” while immigrant‑rights advocates called the ruling a “forceful statement” that the government has been violating the law.cnn +1

The Bigger Picture

The decision marked one of the sharpest judicial rebukes yet to the Trump administration’s expansive deportation agenda, setting up another likely clash at the Supreme Court over the limits of executive power in immigration enforcement.abc7 +1 With the ruling stayed for just two weeks, both the operational impact on deportations and the broader precedent for how the U.S. treats noncitizens facing removal could hinge on how quickly higher courts act—and whether they see third‑country deportations as a necessary enforcement innovation or a shortcut around long‑standing legal protections.