Biden-appointed federal judge blocks Trump’s “third country” deportation policy, citing due process violations

• A federal judge ruled a key Trump deportation policy unlawful.
• The policy sent migrants to countries without prior ties.
• The judge cited a violation of constitutional due process rights.
• The ruling sets up another potential Supreme Court battle.

A federal judge has delivered a powerful rebuke to the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement, ruling that a policy of deporting migrants to countries where they have no prior ties is unlawful. The decision, handed down on February 25 by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, centers on the constitutional right to due process and halts a practice critics describe as dropping people into “parts unknown.” This ruling is the latest volley in a protracted legal battle that has already reached the U.S. Supreme Court and strikes at the heart of executive authority over border security.

A clash over constitutional bedrock

Judge Murphy, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, ordered the Department of Homeland Security’s “third-country” removal policy to be invalidated. He suspended his ruling for 15 days to allow for a near-certain government appeal. The policy allowed immigration officials to deport individuals to nations that are not their own, sometimes with as little as six hours’ notice, if the U.S. received diplomatic assurances about their safety. Murphy found this process fundamentally flawed. “These are our laws, 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,'” Murphy wrote.

He emphasized that migrants are entitled to “meaningful notice” and a real opportunity to object before being sent to another nation. This ruling stems from a class-action lawsuit filed on behalf of migrants, including some who had previously been granted protection from deportation to their home countries due to fears of persecution or torture.

The administration’s defense and pushback

The Department of Homeland Security swiftly defended its authority. In a statement, the agency said it “must be allowed to execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.” It pointed to two previous Supreme Court stays granted in this ongoing case, expressing confidence it would “be vindicated again.” The administration framed the issue as a matter of national security, stating, “The Biden Administration allowed millions of illegal aliens to flood our country, and the Trump Administration has the constitutional authority to remove these criminal illegal aliens and clean up this national security nightmare.”

The department argued that blocking this policy could force the release of dangerous individuals. “If these activists judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists, and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets,” the statement said. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have noted that some individuals removed under this policy, like eight men sent to South Sudan last May, had been convicted of crimes in the U.S. and had final removal orders.

This legal fight is not new. Judge Murphy had previously issued injunctions against the policy, only to see the Supreme Court’s conservative majority pause them, allowing deportations to proceed. Last June, the high court concluded immigration officials could quickly deport individuals to third countries, a decision met with dissent from Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

This ruling sets the stage for another high-stakes appeal, potentially returning to a Supreme Court that has previously sided with the administration’s procedural maneuvers. The core tension remains unchanged: the executive’s claimed authority to swiftly remove noncitizens versus the judiciary’s duty to guard the due process rights of every person on U.S. soil.

Sources for this article include:

YourNews.com

USAToday.com

AlJazeera.com