Donald Trump leaving the West Wing of the White House, Monday, April 7, 2025, in Washington (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein).
A federal judge in Massachusetts on Friday dealt a substantial blow to the Trump administration‘s plans to summarily deport immigrants to countries they are not from, allegedly without due process.
In a sharply-worded 48-page memorandum and order, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee, certified a class of people who can challenge those broadly unpopular deportation plans and barred the government from moving forward with any such plans.
The judge framed the issue as a question fraught with violence.
“This case presents a simple question: before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?” Murphy wrote.
Late last month, the Boston-based judge issued a temporary restraining order barring deportations to third countries without a judge signing off on such measures — presupposing that the government had likely already, or likely would, run afoul of its obligations under the Convention Against Torture.
On March 28, the judge issued the restraining order following a motion hearing during which the court upbraided Department of Justice attorneys for arguing that the deportations “would not be violative of any policy or practice” under U.S. law or treaty obligations.
“If your position today is that we don’t have to give them any notice, and we can send them to any country other than the country to which the immigration court has said no, that’s a very surprising thing to hear the government say,” the judge said, according to a courtroom report by NBC News.
A memorandum explaining the order followed the next day.
“In short, the Government expressed no concern that deportations in violation of the Convention Against Torture could be occurring immediately and regularly in the days until the preliminary injunction; the Court does not share the same disregard for probable due process violations protected by the Constitution and enumerated in both statute and treaty,” Murphy wrote.
Friday’s opinion solidifies that earlier order — which will now remain in place while the rest of the lawsuit plays out at the district court level.
In granting the injunction, the judge widely sourced and heaped opprobrium for the legal positions taken by the Trump administration.
“Defendants argue that the United States may send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin, not where an immigration judge has ordered, where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity to tell the deporting authorities that they face grave danger or death because of such a deportation,” the opinion reads. “All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this Court all disagree.”
The court said the record clearly shows the government has deported people to countries they have no connection to — because officials have admitted as such and argued such policies are aboveboard.
The judge rubbished this state of affairs, at length:
The Court finds it likely that Defendants have applied and will continue to apply the alleged policy of removing aliens to third countries without notice and an opportunity to be heard on fear-based claims — in other words, without due process. Defendants have repeatedly argued that they have no obligation to provide any process whatsoever when newly designating a third country for removal. Defendants’ own avowed position and the numerous declarations Plaintiffs have provided substantiate both the prior and future use of Defendants’ policy of providing no notice prior to third-country removal.
Those admissions by the government, the court said, are untenable — and only work in favor of the plaintiffs in the case.
“Here, the threatened harm is clear and simple: persecution, torture, and death,” Murphy continues. “It is hard to imagine harm more irreparable.”
Under the injunction, the government must “provide written notice” to all immigrants, and their attorneys, about the proposed deportation destination, a “meaningful opportunity” to express fears that might occur in such countries under the torture convention — as well as an additional chance “to seek to move to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal.”
An immigrant’s ability to challenge third-country removal, the judge said, must be granted with a minimum 15-day grace period.
In certifying the class, the court’s order applies nationally to any immigrant the administration seeks to deport under a final removal order.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
While putting a kibosh on the government’s marquee efforts to fast-track deportations, the judge insists the issue is simple and that the plaintiffs in the case are asking for “a limited and measured remedy.”
“Plaintiffs are simply asking to be told they are going to be deported to a new country before they are taken to such a country, and be given an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death,” Murphy goes on. “This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States.”
