Federal judge blocks Trump administration’s fast-track deportations to third countries
A federal judge in Boston has rejected efforts by the Donald Trump administration to lift a ban on rapid deportations of migrants to third-party countries, ruling that the policy violates US law and constitutional due process.
US District Judge Brian Murphy dismissed the request to reinstate a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that allows migrants to be deported to countries other than their nations of origin, including places where they could face persecution, torture, or serious human rights abuses.
“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his ruling, stressing that US law prohibits the forced return of any person to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened. He added that every individual facing deportation is entitled to due process, including legal representation and access to a court hearing.
“These are our laws,” the judge said, affirming the constitutional principle that no person in the United States may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.
Murphy noted that DHS’s third-country removal policy disproportionately targets vulnerable individuals who may face persecution based on factors such as race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a particular social group.
The ruling followed a class-action lawsuit filed last year by four migrants challenging the government’s fast-track deportation procedures, which allowed removals to countries such as El Salvador, Libya, and South Sudan. The suit argued that the policy exposed migrants to serious risks, including torture and abuse.
Criticising the government’s reliance on diplomatic “assurances” from third countries, Murphy questioned their credibility and transparency, saying migrants had a constitutional right to challenge such claims before being deported.
The judge granted DHS a temporary 15-day stay to allow the federal government to file an appeal. The Trump administration has indicated that it expects the case to reach the US Supreme Court for a final ruling.
The decision marks another legal setback for the administration’s immigration agenda and reinforces judicial scrutiny over policies that bypass established asylum protections and due process guarantees.
