A federal judge on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration policy allowing for the rapid deportation of migrants to countries other than their own, without giving them a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture, is unlawful and must be struck down.
US District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued a final ruling declaring the US Department of Homeland Security’s policy invalid in a case that the administration expects will ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court.
But the judge, who was appointed by Democratic President Joe Biden, paused his ruling from taking effect for 15 days to allow the administration time to pursue an appeal, given the case’s “importance and its unusual history.”
The high court has already intervened in the case twice, first lifting a preliminary injunction Murphy issued in April to protect the due process rights of migrants facing deportation to third countries, and later clearing the way for eight men to be sent to South Sudan.
While it was in effect, the earlier injunction hindered the administration’s efforts to send migrants to countries other than their places of origin, including South Sudan, Libya and El Salvador.
Wednesday’s ruling stems from a class action lawsuit challenging a Department of Homeland Security policy documented in a March memo and subsequent guidance in July that permits the rapid deportation to third countries of migrants subject to final orders of removal issued by immigration judges.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of migrants facing deportation to countries not previously named in their removal orders or identified in their immigration court proceedings.
The policy allows migrants to be deported to such countries if immigration authorities either have credible diplomatic assurances they will not be persecuted or tortured if sent there or have given the migrants as little as six hours of notice ahead of time that they are being sent to such a place.
Department of Justice lawyers argued the policy satisfied immigration law requirements and the minimum standards for due process afforded to the migrants, who could preemptively raise any concerns they have about being sent to specific third countries during their immigration court proceedings.
They argued that identifying alternative countries was essential for deporting the “worst of the worst” – migrants whose home countries refused them due to crimes they committed.
