Judge Blocks Trump’s Rapid Deportation Plan to Third Countries

Marking a significant setback for the administration’s ongoing efforts to intensify immigration enforcement

Boston, MA — A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction halting the Trump administration’s policy of rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate fears of persecution, torture, or death.

The decision, delivered Friday by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, marks a significant setback for the administration’s ongoing efforts to intensify immigration enforcement since President Donald Trump’s return to office in January 2025.

The blocked policy, introduced earlier this year, would have allowed immigration authorities to swiftly deport hundreds—potentially thousands—of migrants to so-called “safe third countries.” These are nations other than the migrants’ countries of origin, often in Central America, that have agreements with the U.S. to accept deportees. The administration argued the measure was necessary to address what it called a crisis at the southern border and to deter unauthorized migration.

However, immigrant rights organizations challenged the policy in court, contending that it violated basic due process rights by denying migrants the chance to present evidence of the dangers they might face if deported to a third country. Many of those affected are individuals who have been granted limited protections against returning to their home countries due to threats of violence or persecution.

Judge Murphy’s ruling requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide all affected migrants with a “meaningful opportunity” to seek legal relief from deportation before being sent to a third country. In his decision, Murphy wrote, “The Court has found it likely that these deportations have or will be wrongfully executed and that there has at least been no opportunity for Plaintiffs to demonstrate the substantial harms they might face.” He further noted that the administration’s revised guidance, which required diplomatic assurances from receiving countries, still “fails to safeguard basic rights.”

The preliminary injunction will remain in place until the litigation is resolved.

The Trump administration has already signaled its intention to appeal the decision, arguing that nationwide injunctions by federal judges have repeatedly hindered its ability to implement immigration policy. The Supreme Court is expected to review the broader issue of nationwide injunctions later this year.

The legal battle comes amid heightened scrutiny of the administration’s deportation practices. In recent weeks, the U.S. has deported alleged members of violent gangs such as Tren de Aragua and MS-13 to El Salvador, where they are being held in high-security prisons. Human rights advocates and some relatives of deportees have raised concerns about the lack of transparency and the risk of abuse or wrongful deportation, especially for individuals who may not have committed crimes or who face persecution in the countries to which they are sent.

The administration’s approach has drawn sharp criticism from advocacy groups, who argue that sending migrants to unfamiliar third countries without adequate review could expose them to grave danger. “The protections the court has ordered here are critical to make sure DHS does not turn around and ship them to a third country where they would face the same harms,” said Anwen Hughes, an attorney for Human Rights First, which represents the plaintiffs in the case.

Despite the court order, the Trump administration has continued to defend its strategy as essential for national security and public safety. Officials point to recent deportations of individuals described as “violent criminals,” including members of transnational gangs, as evidence of the policy’s necessity. However, critics argue that such deportations, especially when carried out rapidly and without proper legal review, risk violating international human rights obligations and U.S. law.

The outcome of the legal challenge could have far-reaching implications for U.S. immigration policy and the rights of migrants facing deportation. For now, the judge’s injunction ensures that migrants must be given a fair chance to contest their removal before being sent to a third country, reaffirming the principle that due process protections apply even in the context of immigration enforcement.

#Immigration #Deportation #TrumpAdministration #HumanRights #DueProcess #USCourts #MigrantRights #BreakingNews #ThirdCountryDeportations

Tags: Trump, immigration, deportation, third countries, federal court, Judge Brian Murphy, Department of Homeland Security, due process, migrant rights, El Salvador, Tren de Aragua, MS-13, injunction, legal challenge, Supreme Court, human rights, United States, policy, appeal, Boston