Judge Halts Third-Country Deportations, Says DOJ Arguments Are 'Off Base'

A federal judge in Boston, Mass., ruled on February 25 that the Trump administration’s policy of deporting illegal immigrants to countries where they are not from without due process must stop.

In an underlying case, several detainees have challenged the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)'s deportation directive. The case drew national attention when the DHS deported eight men to South Sudan who were not Sudanese nationals. After a series of court orders, the eight men were detained at a U.S. military base in the East African Country of Djibouti.

U.S. District Judge Brain E. Murphy, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, determined in an 81-page memorandum that the so-called “third country policy” violates due process.

“This case is about whether a government may without notice deport a person to the wrong country, or to a country where he is likely to be prosecuted, or tortured thereby depriving that person of the opportunity to seek protections to which he would be undisputedly entitled,” Murphy said in the ruling.

During a hearing in March 2025, a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney argued that such deportations are “fine” as long as the “government doesn't already know that there is someone standing there waiting to shoot.” Murphy criticized the argument in the ruling.

"It is not fine, nor is it legal," Murphy said. Congress made it “the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country, where that person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

Congress determined that the government “may not remove” a person to a country where their life or freedom would be threatened because of race, religion, nationality or membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Murphy has repeatedly criticized the Trump administration’s policy. Over several months in 2025, the judge issued several opinions that culminated in a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of the policy.

Earlier disputes focused on preliminary matters rather than the merits of the case. The court has now ruled on cross motions for summary judgement filed by the plaintiffs and a motion to dismiss filed by the defendants. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, finding the policy “unlawful” under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) and the due process clause.