A significant ruling was handed down by a U.S. federal court on Wednesday, deeming the Trump administration’s third-country removal policy unlawful for failing to provide migrants with opportunities to object or raise safety concerns. The case, which was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, stemmed from a class action lawsuit initiated by eight migrants affected by the policy.
The controversial policy had directed these migrants, originally destined for South Sudan, to Djibouti—a location not cited in their removal documents. The court’s decision emphasized that deportation must conform to Congressional intent, which prohibits sending individuals to countries where their safety is at risk. Judge Brian Murphy articulated in his opinion that U.S. laws reflect a foundational principle: no person should face deprivation of life, liberty, or property without due process. This aligns with Congress’s stance against sending individuals to countries where they might face torture or threats based on specific characteristics such as race or political opinion.
The ruling specifies that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must prioritize returning migrants to their country of origin as documented and provide adequate notice and hearing before any removal to third countries. This implies a redirection of the agency’s practices to ensure a more transparent and just process for those facing deportation.
The legal struggle over this policy may yet continue, as in April 2025, a preliminary injunction by Judge Murphy against the third-country removal policy was removed by the Supreme Court, allowing the migrants’ removal to Djibouti at that time. The case is anticipated to return to the Supreme Court since Judge Murphy has set a 15-day window for the Trump administration to file an appeal, given the issue’s broad implications and uncommon trajectory. For comprehensive details, JURIST provides a detailed account.
This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing discourse over immigration and deportation policy, as it reinforces the imperative for the U.S. government to adhere to legal frameworks designed to uphold human rights and due process. The ruling could shape future policies and procedures, impacting how similar cases are approached across the nation. The Washington Post further elaborates on the broader implications for immigration law and administration practices.