A federal judge has halted the Trump administration’s practice of deporting undocumented immigrants to “third countries” without proper notification or the chance for them to contest their expulsion. This significant case may end up in the Supreme Court.
This ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who was appointed by Biden, follows a class-action lawsuit filed in Boston. The lawsuit challenged the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) deportation processes to countries that weren’t specified in original deportation orders.
Judge Murphy ruled that the DHS policy for third-country expulsions is invalid and violates due process under the U.S. Constitution.
He emphasized the gravity of the situation, asking, “Does the government really have the right to send someone to a country where they might face persecution or torture without letting them know what’s happening?” Murphy pointed out that this practice effectively deprives individuals of their right to seek the protections they deserve.
He criticized the DHS for its policy of dropping people in unfamiliar places and indicated that it’s not just bad practice but also illegal.
Neither the DHS nor the Department of Justice has yet replied to inquiries about whether they intend to challenge this ruling.
Murphy took issue with the Trump administration’s assertion that undocumented immigrants do not have access to due process, stating that this principle applies to everyone in the U.S., regardless of their immigration status. “Our legal system values due process for all,” he remarked.
To allow time for the Trump administration to appeal, Murphy has put a temporary suspension on the ruling for 15 days, recognizing the case’s importance and its complicated history.
He has been involved in related class-action lawsuits concerning the deportation of immigrants to countries like South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Guatemala.
This ruling isn’t an isolated event; it ties into a broader movement by federal judges pushing against the Trump administration’s policies, particularly concerning deportations to those third countries. Murphy has highlighted the problematic nature of depots, especially when prior notifications aren’t given.
In discussions about the case, he noted that some representatives of the class seeking justice indeed had criminal backgrounds, a point that the Trump administration often highlights. However, Murphy maintains that this does not negate their right to due process.
Meanwhile, White House representatives have characterized the judges opposing Trump’s policies as “activists,” rejecting the notion that immigrants should be stripped of due process rights. Other lower court judges have consistently ruled that due process was violated by the administration, reinforcing legal perspectives echoed by the Supreme Court on multiple occasions since Trump took office.
Last year, the Trump administration did secure a Supreme Court decision that limited the ability of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions against executive orders.
