Judge Rules Trump’s Third-Country Deportations Violate Due Process

(MASSACHUSETTS) — U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to “third countries” violates federal immigration law and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.

Murphy, a Biden appointee in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, issued the decision in a class-action lawsuit filed last year by noncitizens challenging Department of Homeland Security practices.

The ruling blocks deportations that send migrants to nations that are neither their home country nor previously designated in removal orders, a change Murphy said the administration imposed without the process the Constitution requires.

At issue is a form of removal in which the government transfers a person ordered deported not to their country of nationality, but to a different country altogether. In the case before Murphy, that meant removal to places “like South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.”

Supporters of the approach have described it as a way to move quickly and find destinations when returns to a person’s home country prove difficult. Murphy’s decision focused on what happens to the person facing removal when the destination shifts to a country not previously specified.

Murphy rejected the administration’s argument that the policy fit within existing legal structures, concluding it deprived “persons” in the U.S.—regardless of immigration status—of due process.

In practical terms, the judge said, the problem begins with notice and the chance to respond. He found the policy failed to provide notice, an opportunity to object, or verifiable assurances against persecution or torture in the receiving country.

Murphy quoted the Constitution directly. He affirmed: “no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’”

He also criticized the administration’s reliance on what it characterized as assurances from receiving countries. “This new policy — which purports to stand in for the protections Congress has mandated — fails to satisfy due process for a raft of reasons, not least of which is that nobody really knows anything about these purported ‘assurances.’ Whom do they cover? What do they cover? Why has the Government deemed them credible?”

Under the policy Murphy reviewed, migrants had to affirmatively state fear of removal. Officers would not inquire proactively.

Only if persecution or torture was deemed “more likely than not” would alternatives apply, such as another country or a referral to immigration court. Murphy said that structure fell short of statutory and constitutional requirements.

The decision also turned on how immigration law structures where the government may send someone when carrying out an order of removal. Murphy found the policy inadequate under statutory requirements governing removal destinations, including INA § 241(b)(2), and under constitutional standards.

In Murphy’s analysis, the statutory framework and the constitutional floor work together. Federal immigration law governs how removal destinations are chosen, while due process imposes minimum procedures when government action exposes a person to serious harm.

Third-country deportations, Murphy indicated, raise distinct issues from routine removals because the destination is not the person’s home country and not one already specified in the removal order. His ruling treated that shift as legally consequential when it increases the risk of persecution or torture and occurs without meaningful process.

The judge’s order restrains the government from carrying out the challenged practice nationwide, though the case remains in active litigation. He issued injunctive relief in the class-action challenge that bars deportations under the policy, as described in his decision.

Murphy stayed his ruling for 15 days, giving the Trump administration time to seek appellate review in the First Circuit Court of Appeals. He acknowledged the case’s “importance” and “unusual history.”

That history includes prior intervention from the Supreme Court. In this litigation, the Supreme Court issued two emergency stays against Murphy.

The stay means the immediate effects of the injunction will not fully take hold while the administration decides whether to seek relief from the appeals court. If the government appeals to the First Circuit, the timeline could move quickly through emergency motions, and the practical reach of the order could change depending on whether the appeals court narrows or pauses it.

DHS responded by pointing directly to the Supreme Court’s earlier actions in the case. “The Supreme Court previously issued two separate emergency stays against Judge Brian Murphy in this case, and we are confident we will be vindicated again,” the department said.

DHS also asserted authority to “remove these criminal illegal aliens” to willing countries. The judge’s ruling did not turn on whether any particular country was willing to accept transfers, focusing instead on the process afforded to migrants before removal to third countries.

The White House criticized the decision and framed it as an obstacle to the administration’s enforcement agenda. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson called it an “unlawful ruling, by a lower court Biden judge, will not stand,” and pointed to the administration’s mass deportation mandate under Executive Order 14165 (“Securing Our Borders”).

Murphy’s decision landed amid multiple legal fights over Trump-era immigration measures. Separate litigation has produced other court blocks, including a federal judge halting termination of protections for 350,000 Haitian migrants in early February 2026.

Courts have also issued ongoing injunctions against birthright citizenship restrictions dating from January 20, 2025. Those cases are separate matters, but they form part of the broader judicial environment surrounding the administration’s immigration push.

The administration has treated third-country removals as one component of aggressive interior enforcement against undocumented immigrants, including those with criminal records. The government has paired that approach with expedited processes under laws like the Laken Riley Act, signed January 29, 2025.

Murphy’s ruling, however, emphasized that speed and operational flexibility do not remove the constitutional requirement of due process. His opinion framed the core defect as the absence of notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-based objections before a transfer to a third country.

A central feature of his reasoning was skepticism about the reliability and scope of the government’s assurances. In his view, uncertainty about “Whom do they cover? What do they cover?” undermined the administration’s position that the policy adequately protected people from persecution or torture.

The injunction applies nationwide as an order directed at federal agencies. That kind of nationwide relief can bind DHS across the country while an appeal proceeds, even when the case sits in a single federal district court.

Even so, the order’s practical footprint could shift during appellate review. A First Circuit decision could modify, narrow, or stay the injunction pending appeal, and the government could also seek emergency relief given the case’s earlier path to the Supreme Court.

Murphy’s ruling left open the next procedural steps, and DHS and DOJ have not confirmed appeal plans. For migrants subject to removal orders, the decision places the question of process at the center of any effort to deport people to third countries, with the government’s next move likely to determine how quickly enforcement practices change.