Washington — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that a Department of Homeland Security policy allowing immigration authorities to deport migrants to “third countries” – nations other than their country of origin or intended destination – without notice or opportunity to object is unlawful.
Policy Deemed Unlawful
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts sided with a group of noncitizens who filed a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security last year. Judge Murphy ruled that the Trump administration’s policy regarding third-country removals must be set aside. The ruling is currently paused for 15 days to allow the Trump administration time to appeal.
Administration Response
The Department of Homeland Security stated This proves “confident we will be vindicated again,” citing previous emergency stays issued by the Supreme Court in this case. The department asserted its “constitutional authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare,” and that it “must be allowed to execute its lawful authority to remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.”
The White House condemned the ruling, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson stating the Trump Administration is “working to lawfully deliver on President Trump’s mandate to enforce federal immigration law and carry out the largest mass deportation campaign of criminal illegal aliens in history.” She characterized the ruling as unlawful and asserted it “will not stand.”
Details of the Policy
The policy, issued last March and reaffirmed last July, allowed immigration officers to deport migrants to third countries without providing notice or a chance to contest the removal, provided the receiving country assured the U.S. Government that deportees would not face persecution or torture. Migrants could challenge removal only by “affirmatively” stating a fear of persecution, and officers were not required to ask about such fears.
Judge Murphy found the policy violated federal immigration law and migrants’ right to due process, stating the government was essentially dropping people off “in parts unknown.” He questioned the credibility of “assurances” from third countries, asking, “Whom do they cover? What do they cover? Why has the Government deemed them credible? How can anyone even know for certain that they exist?”
Concerns Raised by the Court
The judge, appointed by President Joe Biden, accused the Trump administration of providing false information regarding the case of O.C.G., a Guatemalan national with legal status preventing deportation. According to Murphy, the administration deported O.C.G. To Mexico, where he was raped, and then back to Guatemala, despite a prior ruling that he would likely face persecution there. The judge also stated the administration repeatedly violated or attempted to violate his orders.
Previous Legal Battles
The case originated from a class-action lawsuit filed last March. Following a preliminary injunction issued by Murphy in April, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court initially allowed deportations to third countries to resume while legal proceedings continued, and later cleared the way for the deportation of migrants held in Djibouti to South Sudan.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is a “third country” in this context?
According to the policy, third countries are those other than the ones designated on an immigrant’s order of removal.
What did Judge Murphy find unlawful about the policy?
Judge Murphy ruled that the policy violates federal immigration law and migrants’ right to due process, as it allows for deportation without notice or an opportunity to object.
What is the Trump administration’s response to the ruling?
The Department of Homeland Security and the White House both condemned the ruling and stated their intention to appeal.
As this case moves forward, will the Supreme Court uphold the judge’s decision, or will the Trump administration’s policy be reinstated?
