A federal court in Boston has declared unconstitutional a Trump-era immigration policy that enabled the government to quickly deport migrants to nations other than their home countries without adequate legal protections.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy delivered his final decision on Wednesday, invalidating the Department of Homeland Security’s controversial deportation practice in a legal battle expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Murphy, nominated by President Joe Biden, delayed implementation of his order for two weeks to give federal officials time to file an appeal, citing the case’s “importance and its unusual history.”
The Supreme Court has already weighed in on this matter twice, initially overturning Murphy’s earlier temporary block on the policy in April, then later permitting eight individuals to be transported to South Sudan.
During the period when Murphy’s initial order was active, it significantly hampered the government’s ability to send migrants to alternative destinations including South Sudan, Libya, and El Salvador.
The current legal challenge originated from a group lawsuit targeting a Homeland Security directive first outlined in March documentation and later expanded through July guidance. This policy enabled quick deportations to third nations for migrants who had received final removal orders from immigration courts.
Legal representatives filed the case on behalf of migrants facing removal to countries that were not originally specified in their deportation orders or mentioned during their immigration hearings.
Under this policy, migrants could be sent to alternative nations if immigration officials either obtained reliable diplomatic guarantees that deportees would face no persecution or torture, or provided migrants with as little as six hours advance notice of their transfer to such locations.
Justice Department attorneys defended the practice, claiming it met immigration law standards and provided adequate due process protections for migrants, who they said could voice concerns about specific third countries during their court proceedings.
Government lawyers contended that finding alternative destinations was crucial for removing the “worst of the worst” – migrants whose origin countries rejected them due to criminal backgrounds.
