‘Third Country’ Deportation Policy Illegal, US Judge Rules (1)

The Trump administration’s swift deportation of noncitizens to countries unfamiliar to them runs counter to laws guaranteeing protection from persecution or torture, a Boston federal judge ruled Wednesday.

The decision by Judge Brian Murphy of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts aligns with his prior rulings restricting the government’s transport of immigrants to so-called third countries. The US Supreme Court promptly stayed those limits through brief, unsigned orders on its emergency docket.

Murphy rejected the government’s position that it could “take people and drop them off in parts unknown” so long as it doesn’t know there’s someone there waiting to shoot them.

“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” the judge said, citing protections from torture for people based on race, religion, nationality, social group, or political opinion.

“These are our laws,” he continued, “and it is with profound gratitude for the unbelievable luck of being born in the United States of America that this Court affirms these and our nation’s bedrock principle: that no ‘person’ in this country may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’”

In his order finding for the immigrants, Murphy accepted he likely wouldn’t be the final word on the case and stayed the full force of the ruling for 15 days to give the government time to seek a stay from the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The government doesn’t have free rein to deport noncitizens to unfamiliar countries, the judge said. Immigration authorities must follow the law and attempt to send them to their choice country, their country of citizenship, and also the place of their most recent connection before deporting them to a third country, according to the ruling.

The Trump administration also must give immigrants a “meaningful opportunity” to raise concerns that they could be tortured if sent to a specific country, the judge said, while rejecting the government’s policy of accepting blanket assurances from countries claiming the people they accept won’t be harmed.

“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,’” Murphy said.

The class action challenging the Department of Homeland Security’s practice could impact the government’s ability to remove thousands of noncitizens to third countries and clarify due process rights for noncitizens facing removal.

Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, who represents the plaintiffs, called the ruling “a forceful statement” that the policy is unlawful and makes clear that noncitizens have rights to raise claims of torture fears before being deported.

Representatives for the Department of Homeland Security weren’t immediately available for comment.

The class is also represented by Northwest Immigrant Rights Project and Human Rights First. The government is represented by the Department of Justice’s Office of Immigration Litigation.

The case is D.V.D. v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., D. Mass., 1:25-cv-10676, ruling issued 2/25/26.