A federal judge in Massachusetts has struck down a key Trump administration immigration policy that permitted the rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own without adequate notice or opportunity to challenge the move. Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled on yesterday, that the policy violates federal immigration statutes and the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections. The decision came in a class-action lawsuit filed by several noncitizens who faced or experienced such removals.
Murphy’s 45-page opinion declared the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal guidelines unlawful and ordered them set aside. He granted a 15-day stay to allow the government time to appeal. The ruling addresses a policy implemented through DHS memoranda in March and July 2025.
Those memos allowed immigration officials to deport individuals with final removal orders to any accepting nation, provided diplomatic assurances against persecution or torture were in place. Without those assurances, officials had to notify migrants of the destination but were not required to ask about fears of harm there.
If a migrant expressed concern unprompted, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services would conduct a screening within 24 hours to assess risks. A positive finding could lead to a full immigration court hearing.
Murphy found this framework insufficient. He determined it contravenes the Immigration and Nationality Act’s requirements for sequential country designations in removal orders and mandatory protections against removal to places where life or freedom might be threatened due to race, religion, nationality, social group membership, or political opinion.
The judge also held that the policy deprives individuals of a meaningful chance to assert claims under the Convention Against Torture. “No person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” Murphy wrote, emphasizing that even noncitizens with removal orders retain these rights.
The decision has broad implications for migration flows from Latin America, where many asylum seekers originate from countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador. Under the policy, such individuals could be sent to other regional nations like Mexico or even non-Latin countries such as Libya or South Sudan, despite potential dangers.
One plaintiff, a Guatemalan national identified as O.C.G., was deported to Mexico despite prior experiences of rape and captivity there. Officials claimed he did not express fear, but the court noted inadequate process, including limited time to consult counsel. Other class members faced removals to El Salvador and Mexico without proper notifications. Murphy highlighted how the policy bypassed statutory steps, allowing DHS to ignore designated removal countries and proceed directly to third options.
DHS Secretary Kristi Noem defended the approach as necessary for efficient enforcement. A department spokesperson stated that officials must retain authority to remove those with final orders to willing recipient countries. The American Civil Liberties Union, representing the plaintiffs, hailed the ruling as a victory for fundamental fairness. Lead attorney Lee Gelernt said it prevents “secret deportations” that endanger lives.
The case stems from a February 2025 DHS directive instructing officers to review detained noncitizens for third-country removal viability. Plaintiffs filed suit in March of the same year, securing a preliminary injunction from Murphy in April. The U.S. Supreme Court intervened in June 2025, lifting that injunction and allowing the policy to proceed during litigation. With the merits now decided, the high court may revisit the issue.
Murphy dismissed some plaintiff claims, including those against a local detention facility superintendent, but upheld core challenges. He ordered DHS to provide required processes for affected class members, though he stopped short of mandating immediate returns for those already deported.
The Trump administration has prioritized large-scale deportations since the president’s inauguration in January 2025, following his 2024 election win. Border encounters remain elevated, with Central American nationals comprising a significant portion. Regional governments have mixed reactions. Mexican officials have cooperated on some returns but expressed concerns over capacity.
The ruling could delay removals, forcing DHS to revert to traditional procedures that prioritize home-country deportations or specified alternatives. It may also prompt more withholding-of-removal applications tied to third-country risks. Attorney General Pamela Bondi indicated an appeal to the First Circuit Court of Appeals is forthcoming. If unsuccessful there, the government could seek Supreme Court review again.
During the 15-day stay, DHS can continue third-country removals under the policy. After that, unless extended, the vacatur takes effect nationwide. Immigration advocates expect increased scrutiny of removal practices in the interim. For migrants in custody, the decision offers a pathway to contest unexpected destinations.
