BOSTON — In a major legal setback for the Trump administration’s immigration agenda, a federal judge ruled Wednesday that the policy of deporting migrants to “third countries”—nations where they have no citizenship or ties—is unlawful. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy found that the practice violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process protections and federal statutes designed to prevent the involuntary return of individuals to face torture or persecution.
The 81-page ruling, issued on February 25, 2026, invalidates a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy that allowed immigration officers to remove migrants with as little as six hours’ notice. The court held that the government must provide “meaningful notice” and a genuine opportunity for individuals to challenge their destination before being sent to an unfamiliar third country.
A Breach of Constitutional “Bedrock”
The case, a class-action lawsuit filed by legal advocacy groups including Human Rights First and the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, highlighted instances where migrants were sent to volatile regions like South Sudan or Djibouti despite never having lived there.
- The “Assurances” Critique: Judge Murphy rejected the government’s reliance on vague “assurances” from foreign nations that deportees would not be harmed. “Nobody really knows anything about these purported ‘assurances,’” Murphy wrote, questioning their credibility and scope.
- Targeting Protected Classes: The court noted the policy specifically targeted those who had already won legal protection from being returned to their home countries—only for the government to attempt to “drop them off in parts unknown.”
- Violation of Prior Orders: The judge also chastised DHS for “repeatedly violating” previous preliminary injunctions, citing a 2025 incident where migrants were held in shipping containers at a naval base in Djibouti during a botched removal to South Sudan.
Administrative Response and Higher Court Hurdles
The Trump administration has signaled its intent to appeal the ruling immediately. A DHS spokesperson defended the policy as a necessary component of the “largest mass deportation campaign in history,” arguing that the executive branch has the constitutional authority to remove noncitizens to any country willing to accept them.
“The district court continues to ignore clear law,” a Justice Department spokesperson stated, expressing confidence that the conservative-majority Supreme Court will eventually reinstate the policy.
What This Means for Migrants
Judge Murphy has placed a 15-day stay on his decision to allow the government time to seek an emergency appeal. For now:
- Notice Requirements: Immigration authorities are currently prohibited from removing class members to third countries without written notice and a hearing.
- Right to Object: Migrants must be given the chance to prove they would face a “more likely than not” risk of persecution or torture in the third-country destination.
As the legal battle moves toward the Supreme Court for a likely final showdown this summer, the ruling serves as a significant hurdle for the administration’s efforts to expedite removals through opaque bilateral agreements with nations such as Rwanda, El Salvador, and Palau.
