Federal judge halts Trump administration's policy of deportation to third countries

Miami Herald

29-03-2025

In a significant legal blow to the Trump administration's immigration agenda, a federal judge has slammed the brakes on a controversial deportation policy that allowed the deportation of migrants to countries where they had no prior connection — without first giving them a chance to challenge their removal in court.
The ruling, part of the case D.V.D., et al. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, et al., halts a practice that critics say endangers migrants by sending them to nations where they may face persecution or violence. The ruling extends beyond the named plaintiffs, providing protection to thousands of migrants facing similar risks of abrupt removal.
Ruling from Boston, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy on Friday issued a nationwide temporary restraining order on Friday, citing serious concerns over due process violations and potential breaches of international law under the Convention Against Torture.
The judge's decision prevents U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement from deporting individuals subject to final removal orders to third countries — ones not designated in their original immigration proceedings — unless they are first given written notice and the opportunity to seek legal protection.
The restraining order will remain in effect until an April 10 hearing, in which the court will determine whether to impose a longer-term injunction against the policy. Just hours after the decision, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an appeal, arguing that the ruling undermines executive authority over immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration's aggressive immigration strategy has led to a significant increase in deportations of migrants to third countries, primarily within Latin America and the Caribbean. Key partners include Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, Panama, and El Salvador. While the practice aims to improve the management of migration flows and alleviate pressure on U.S. detention centers, it has ignited a firestorm of controversy due to apprehensions about the safety and legal rights of those deported.
Deported migrants often find themselves trapped in a cycle of violence, exploitation and legal limbo in these third countries, human rights advocates say, arguing that these deportations not only run counter to international laws but also endanger vulnerable individuals.
Adding fuel to the fire is the Trump administration's use of a mega prison in El Salvador, which has become a destination for hundreds of Venezuelan migrants accused of being members of the violent Tren de Aragua gang. The controversial policy has drawn sharp criticism from human rights organizations and legal experts alike.
The administration's policy, introduced in February, directed ICE officers to review the cases of migrants previously released from detention and initiate their removal to alternative countries—even if those individuals had complied with all conditions of their release.
The case is the latest in a series of legal battles over Trump's aggressive immigration policies. Critics argue that forcibly sending migrants to unfamiliar countries—without considering the risks they may face—violates U.S. asylum laws and international treaties.
Trina Realmuto, an attorney with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, welcomed the ruling as a 'critical safeguard' against arbitrary removals.
'We're relieved the judge saw the urgency of this situation, both for our named plaintiffs and the thousands of individuals facing similar deportation risks,' she told Reuters.
Murphy's ruling is one of several judicial roadblocks to the administration's sweeping immigration policies.
In another high-profile case, Washington, D.C. District Judge James Boasberg recently extended a freeze on the deportation of Venezuelan migrants accused of gang affiliation, citing concerns over the administration's use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. That case is now headed for a Supreme Court showdown, as the Trump administration argues for broad executive power to enforce deportations under national security justifications.
With multiple courts weighing in, legal experts say the Supreme Court's eventual ruling could reshape the limits of executive authority over immigration enforcement for years to come.
The Department of Homeland Security has not yet publicly responded to the ruling.
There are several legal proceedings in federal court affecting immigrants in the U.S. and potential deportations:
▪ April 8: Hearing on possible extension of the Washington, D.C. court's ruling on Venezuelan deportations.
▪ April 10: Hearing on whether Judge Murphy's temporary restraining order will be converted into a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.
▪ Supreme Court review pending: The Trump administration's emergency request to reinstate deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.
Miami Herald wire services were used to complement this story.