Judge Blocks Summary Deportation, Bemoans ‘Probable Due Process Violations’ for Immigrants

A federal judge in Massachusetts has issued a sweeping ruling against a controversial Trump-era immigration policy that allowed immigrants to be deported to countries they have no ties to—often without prior notice or due process. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, appointed by President Joe Biden, solidified an earlier restraining order and granted a nationwide injunction preventing the government from carrying out such removals. In a sharply worded 48-page opinion, Murphy emphasized that immigrants must be told where they are being sent and allowed to raise fears of persecution, torture, or death, particularly under protections afforded by the Convention Against Torture.

“A Simple Question with Violent Implications”

Framing the legal question in stark human terms, Judge Murphy wrote, “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?” This ruling follows a temporary restraining order issued in March 2024, which blocked deportations to third countries unless reviewed and approved by a judge. During that hearing, the court criticized Department of Justice attorneys for defending the practice and dismissing concerns about its legality under U.S. law and international treaties.

Due Process Required Before Deportation

Murphy’s decision declares that the U.S. government cannot remove immigrants to countries they did not come from—without notifying them or giving them a chance to raise objections based on fear of harm. The court ordered that any immigrant facing third-country removal must be provided:

• Written notice of the intended deportation destination

• A meaningful opportunity to raise concerns under the Convention Against Torture

• A 15-day grace period to seek the reopening of immigration proceedings, if necessary

The judge highlighted evidence showing the federal government had already deported individuals to countries they were not connected to and had done so without offering any notice or hearing. Officials even admitted to this practice, arguing it was permissible—a stance the court forcefully rejected.

Severe Criticism of the Government’s Legal Position

Judge Murphy did not mince words in criticizing the legal rationale presented by the government. He wrote, “Defendants argue that the United States may send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin… where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity” to object. He added, “All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court, the Assistant Solicitor General, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this Court all disagree.” Calling the potential consequences “persecution, torture, and death,” Murphy said the harm immigrants face is “clear and irreparable.” His ruling certifies a class of individuals who may be impacted by the policy, meaning the decision applies nationwide.

“A Small Modicum of Process” Is Constitutionally Required

The judge concluded by noting the plaintiffs aren’t asking for sweeping changes—just basic legal fairness. “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,” Murphy wrote, “and be allowed to explain why such a deportation will likely result in their persecution, torture, and/or death. This small modicum of process is mandated by the Constitution of the United States.”