U.S. Judge Strikes Down Trump-Era 'Third Country' Deportation Policy
A U.S. District Judge in Massachusetts has ruled that a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, established during the Trump administration, which allowed immigration authorities to deport noncitizens to "third countries" without prior notice or a meaningful opportunity to object, is unlawful.
The ruling, issued on Wednesday, sets aside the policy, citing violations of federal immigration law and migrants' right to due process. The judge has paused the ruling for 15 days to allow for a potential appeal.
The 'Third Country' Deportation Policy
The policy, initially issued in March and reaffirmed in July of the previous year, permitted immigration officers to deport noncitizens to countries other than their designated country of removal. This was contingent on the government receiving assurances that deportees would not face persecution or torture in the third country.
Crucially, the policy did not require officers to proactively inquire if an individual feared removal to that country; challenges were only permitted if migrants "affirmatively" stated such a fear.
Under this policy, the Trump administration engaged with various nations, including Costa Rica, Panama, and Rwanda, regarding the acceptance of non-citizen migrants. An arrangement was also made with El Salvador to detain Venezuelan migrants at the facility known as CECOT.
Subsequent guidance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in July allowed employees, under specific circumstances, to deport migrants to non-original countries in as little as six hours, sometimes without explicit assurances regarding persecution or torture. While this guidance stated that ICE officers would not proactively inquire about fear, individuals who vocalized such concerns were to be referred for screening within 24 hours, though attempts to deport them to countries they expressed fear about could still occur.
Judge's Rationale for Unlawfulness
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy determined that the policy violates federal immigration law and the constitutional right to due process for individuals in the United States. He expressed concerns about the transparency, scope, credibility, and even the existence of the "assurances" purportedly received from third countries.
The judge stated that the policy risked relocating migrants to unknown areas without adequate safeguards. He emphasized that federal immigration laws protect individuals from persecution or torture, and cited both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which underscores the policy against involuntary return to countries where an individual could face torture or threats to life or freedom.
Previous Legal Challenges and Alleged Non-Compliance
The ruling stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by noncitizens last March. Earlier in the legal proceedings, Judge Murphy had issued a preliminary injunction requiring federal immigration authorities to provide class members with written notice of the potential third country of deportation and a "meaningful opportunity" to express fears of harm.
The court noted instances where the Trump administration allegedly did not comply with these prior court orders on multiple occasions. These included the deportation of at least six migrants to El Salvador and Mexico in March without the required process, and providing false information regarding a plaintiff, O.C.G., a Guatemalan national, who was transported to Mexico and then Guatemala despite having been granted protection.
In May, Judge Murphy ruled that the White House had violated his preliminary injunction following an attempt to remove a group of men from various countries, including Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Vietnam, to South Sudan with minimal notice and no opportunity to raise fear-based claims. These men were subsequently held at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti.
The White House defended its actions at the time, stating it had removed "dangerous criminal illegal aliens" in compliance with court orders and expressed confidence in the legality of its actions. The Trump administration pursued emergency appeals, including to the Supreme Court. In a Supreme Court filing, the administration stated it had received assurances from South Sudan that the eight men would not be subjected to torture. In June, the Supreme Court allowed deportations to third countries to resume temporarily while lower court proceedings continued, later permitting the deportation of the migrants held in Djibouti to South Sudan.
Scope and Future Implementation of the Ruling
Judge Murphy's ruling mandates that individuals must receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to challenge their deportations. It specifies that the government may not deport individuals with final orders of removal to third countries other than those specified in their removal paperwork, requiring an initial attempt to send individuals to the countries listed on their official documents.
The ruling applies to individuals who had final removal orders and who have been, or may be, deported to third countries with which they have no connection and which are not listed as destinations on their final orders of removal on or after February 18, 2025. The ruling is paused for 15 days to allow the Trump administration to appeal.