A federal courtroom in Boston has delivered a sharp rebuke to a cornerstone of former President Donald Trump’s immigration playbook.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that a policy allowing migrants to be swiftly deported to countries other than their own — sometimes with only hours’ notice — violates basic constitutional protections. The decision strikes at a program designed to accelerate removals by sending individuals to so-called “third countries,” even if those nations were never mentioned in their original immigration proceedings.
At the heart of the ruling is a simple premise: notice matters. The judge found that migrants must be given a meaningful opportunity to object before being placed on a plane to a country they may have never set foot in — and where they could face serious danger.
The policy, rolled out in 2025 amid an intensified immigration crackdown, permitted removals to alternate destinations if U.S. officials believed diplomatic assurances were sufficient to prevent persecution or torture. In some instances, migrants were told as little as six hours in advance that they would be sent somewhere new.
In his opinion, Murphy dismissed the government’s argument that removals were lawful so long as officials were not explicitly aware of a specific death threat awaiting someone on arrival. That standard, he indicated, falls far short of constitutional due process.
The ruling formally invalidates the Department of Homeland Security’s approach. Still, its impact is temporarily on ice: Murphy delayed enforcement of his decision for 15 days, giving the administration space to appeal — a near certainty in a case that has already drawn the attention of the Supreme Court of the United States.
The high court has twice stepped into the dispute before, lifting an earlier injunction and allowing deportations — including a controversial transfer of eight men to South Sudan — to proceed. Those interventions underscored the legal volatility surrounding the policy.
While it was active, the program cleared pathways for removals to destinations beyond migrants’ home countries, including places such as Libya and El Salvador.
Civil liberties advocates hailed the latest decision as a forceful defense of due process, arguing that individuals had been sent to nations where immigration judges previously concluded they faced credible threats of persecution or torture.
Federal officials, however, maintain that the strategy is a necessary tool when countries of origin refuse to accept deported nationals — particularly those with criminal records. They expressed confidence that higher courts will ultimately uphold the government’s authority.
For now, the legal battle resumes its climb up the judicial ladder, with the balance between border enforcement and constitutional safeguards once again poised for scrutiny at the nation’s highest court.
