An IMGlobalWealth.com News Report
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that the Trump administration may not deport migrants to so-called “third countries” without first providing meaningful notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The decision marks a significant judicial check on an enforcement strategy that had allowed rapid transfers to countries with which individuals had no prior connection.
“As legal challenges continue, the case underscores the tension between expedited immigration enforcement and the constitutional and statutory guarantees of due process”
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy held that the government cannot remove individuals with final orders of removal to destinations not listed in their immigration paperwork without affording them due process. The case arose after eight migrants were placed on a flight intended for South Sudan but were rerouted to Djibouti. Neither country appeared as the designated destination on their final removal orders. Immigration advocates challenged the removals, arguing that the migrants were denied the opportunity to claim protection under U.S. and international law.
Judge Murphy grounded his decision in the Immigration and Nationality Act and America’s obligations under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, both of which prohibit returning individuals to countries where they face a credible risk of torture or persecution. He emphasised that Congress has expressly barred removals to places where a person’s “life or freedom would be threatened”.
The ruling follows a protracted legal back-and-forth. Last year, the Supreme Court temporarily paused an earlier injunction from Murphy that had required migrants to receive a “meaningful opportunity” to raise fears of torture before being sent to third countries. In the wake of that pause, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued internal guidance permitting certain third-country removals in as little as six hours, in some cases without explicit assurances from the receiving state that the individual would not face harm.
According to court filings cited by NBC News, the administration argued that it had received diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the individuals concerned would not be subjected to torture. The White House has maintained that its actions complied with court orders and were necessary to protect public safety.
Murphy’s latest ruling reinstates procedural safeguards. The government must first attempt removal to the country specified in the final order and provide adequate notice before any alternative destination is pursued. The judge stayed his decision for 15 days to allow the administration to appeal.
The judgment applies to individuals with final removal orders who have been, or may be, deported to third countries not listed in their paperwork since February 2025. As legal challenges continue, the case underscores the tension between expedited immigration enforcement and the constitutional and statutory guarantees of due process.
