US judge rules Trump policy of ‘third country’ deportations unlawful

Al Jazeera · Feb 25, 2026 · Collected from RSS

Full Article

US judge says that rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own violates due process.Published On 25 Feb 2026A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump had violated the law through the swift deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them an opportunity to appeal their removal.US District Judge Brian Murphy declared the policy invalid on Wednesday, teeing up a possible appeal from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to the Supreme Court.Recommended Stories list of 3 itemslist 1 of 3US immigration judge rejects Trump bid to deport Columbia student Mahdawilist 2 of 3DHS agent killed US citizen in March last year, records reveallist 3 of 3Fact-checking Trump’s State of the Union addressend of list“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy wrote in his decision, adding that migrants could not be sent to an “unfamiliar and potentially dangerous country” without any legal recourse.He added that due process – the right to receive fair legal proceedings – is an essential component of the US Constitution.“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 said.The ruling is the latest legal setback in the Trump administration’s mass deportation campaign.Trump has long pledged to remove immigrants from the country who violate the law or are in the country without legal paperwork. But critics argue that his immigration crackdown has been marked by widespread neglect of due process rights.They also point out that some of the deportees have been in the country legally, with their cases being processed through legal immigration pathways like asylum.Murphy said in his ruling that the swift nature of the deportation obscures the details of each case, preventing courts from weighing whether each deportation is legal.“The simple reality is that nobody knows the merits of any individual class member’s claim because [administration officials] are withholding the predicate fact: the country of removal,” wrote Murphy.In the decision, Murphy also addressed some of the Trump administration’s arguments in favour of swift deportation.He highlighted one argument, for instance, where the administration asserted it would be “fine” to deport migrants to third-party countries, so long as the Department of Homeland Security was not aware of anyone waiting to kill them upon arrival.“It is not fine, nor is it legal,” Murphy responded in his decision.Murphy has previously ruled against efforts to swiftly deport migrants to countries where they have no ties, and over the past year, he has seen some decisions overturned by the Supreme Court.Noting that trend, Murphy said Wednesday’s decision would not take effect for 15 days, in order to give the administration the opportunity to appeal.Last year, for instance, the conservative-majority Supreme Court lifted an injunction Murphy issued in April that sought to protect the due process rights of migrants being deported to third-party countries.The injunction had come as part of a case where the Trump administration attempted to send eight men to South Sudan, despite concerns about human rights conditions there.Wednesday’s decision, meanwhile, stemmed from a class-action lawsuit brought by immigrants similarly facing deportation to countries they had no relation to.A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Trina Realmuto from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, hailed Murphy’s latest ruling.“Under the government’s policy, people have been forcibly returned to countries where US immigration judges have found they will be persecuted or tortured,” Realmuto said in a statement.Realmuto added that the ruling was a “forceful statement” about the policy’s constitutionality.