5 min readNew DelhiFeb 26, 2026 07:32 PM IST
First published on: Feb 26, 2026 at 07:32 PM IST
A US federal court in Boston on Wednesday (February 25) found unlawful the Trump administration’s policy of deporting purported illegal immigrants to third countries, not their countries of origin.
Judge Brian Murphy ruled that the government must first attempt to deport such detainees to their home countries, or such countries designated by an immigration judge when issuing the order for their removal. After exhausting these options, detainees should be given “meaningful notice” before being deported to another country to establish that such deportation would put them at risk for persecution.
The Trump administration had previously secured an emergency Supreme Court stay on an earlier order by this judge, and pursued a different approach. Its policy was to “not affirmatively ask whether the alien is afraid of being removed to that country,” but to designate another country for deportation — or refer the case to immigration court — if it determined that the migrant would “more likely than not” be persecuted or tortured in the country of removal.
“This new policy — which purports to stand in for the protections Congress has mandated — fails to satisfy due process for a raft of reasons, not least of which is that nobody really knows anything about these purported ‘assurances.’ Whom do they cover? What do they cover? Why has the Government deemed them credible? How can anyone even know for certain that they exist?” Murphy wrote. “These are basic questions that the Constitution permits a person to ask before the Government takes away their last and only lifeline.”
He has, however, granted the administration 15 days to file an appeal against his judgment.
The ruling marks the latest rejection of the Trump administration’s sweeping deportation policies, in which immigrants are sent to distant places they have no links to, such as Eswatini, Rwanda and Ghana.
Immigration was a key campaign plank for Donald Trump’s re-election, and he commenced his crackdown within days of returning to the White House last January. Over the past year, he has clamped down on birthright citizenship, suspended refugee entry, authorised nationwide immigration raids — which have resulted in massive protests — and imposed a national emergency at the country’s southern border.
A report by Senate Democrats earlier this month claimed that the government has spent over $32 million in taxpayer funds to convince third countries to accept around 300 deportees.
Why third-country deportations
Countries typically deport returning migrants to the country of their origin, where they hold citizenship. The practice of third-country deportations seems to have resulted from countries refusing to accept their own citizens, with past Republican and Democratic governments asking countries to take some of them back. In the past, countries like Myanmar, Cuba and Laos have refused to take back some of their citizens from the US.
As part of its stated aim to deport millions of “aliens” living illegally in the US, the Trump administration has been working to set up a network of countries that would accept people from anywhere in the world and incarcerate them in prisons and camps in their territories.
The US had entered into agreements with some foreign governments for third-country deportations, approaching nations like Costa Rica, Kosovo and Rwanda. It also concluded an arrangement with the El Salvador government to detain Venezuelan migrants at the notorious CECOT megaprison.
While South Sudan and Eswatini agreed to take such deportees, the Trump administration also discussed deporting a group of detainees to Libya last May, ultimately deporting eight men to a US naval base in Djibouti. The African nations were part of a list of 51 nations the Trump administration had identified as potential candidates for its third-country deportation program.
The administration has been willing to pay some of these countries to take in the deportees, The New York Times previously reported. The use of financial incentives has been a defining characteristic of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, including offering a $1,000 stipend to encourage self-deportations, and promising financial aid and support for countries that partner with the US in its effort.
What the ruling means
A previous ruling by Judge Murphy, ordering that detainees be given “meaningful notice,” was overturned in an emergency order by the US Supreme Court last June. This paved the way for the detention of eight persons with criminal records in Djibouti before they were handed to the South Sudan government. However, the Supreme Court ruling served as temporary guidance while the case continued to be tried in court.
The Department of Homeland Security had cited the Supreme Court order as its rationale for continuing with its policy. It said that if the government had received credible “diplomatic assurances” from the recipient government that deportees would not be persecuted or tortured, they were not required to offer detainees a chance to challenge their removal.
Judge Murphy struck down this policy in his latest ruling and cited incidents where the Trump administration had “repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate” his previous order mandating due process.
In immigration courts across the country, government lawyers are now increasingly asking judges to 'pretermit,' or dismiss, asylum cases without hearings, asserting that applicants can seek asylum in those 'safe third countries.' (NYT) 
Share
