Third‑Country Deportations Halted: A Judge’s Stand on Due Process

A federal judge in Massachusetts has struck down a policy that allowed the U.S. to send migrants to countries other than their own without warning or an opportunity for the migrants to argue against it. The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by noncitizens in 2023 against the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Key Points

• Policy Overview
  The Trump administration’s “third‑country” removal plan, issued in March and reaffirmed in July, permitted DHS to deport individuals to a foreign country if that nation assured the U.S. that the person would not face persecution or torture. No notice was required, and migrants could only protest if they explicitly claimed fear of harm.

• Judge’s Decision
  Judge Brian Murphy set aside the plan, citing violations of federal law and the constitutional guarantee of due process. He criticized DHS’s reliance on vague assurances from other governments, which may not even understand what they are promising.

• Highlighted Misconduct
  The judge cited a case where Guatemalan O. C. G. was illegally sent to Mexico after being granted protection from deportation to Guatemala. DHS’s false statements and disregard for legal orders were described as an “incendiary gloss” that ignored real risks faced by many migrants.

• Ongoing Legal Actions
  Since March, DHS has repeatedly failed to comply with a preliminary injunction that required written notice of the intended third country and an opportunity for migrants to voice concerns. The judge also blocked attempts to send men with criminal records to war‑torn South Sudan, ordering instead that they be held in a small African port.

• Supreme Court Status
  The Supreme Court has allowed the policy to continue while lower‑court rulings are reviewed, but Judge Murphy’s injunction remains in effect.

Takeaway

The ruling underscores that even amid immigration crises, the government must uphold basic legal rights and cannot abandon due process for expediency.