Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Third-Country Deportation Policy Unlawful, Stays Order Pending Appeal

(DailyAnswer.org) – A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy violates constitutional due process, yet the policy continues operating during appeals—exposing how activist courts create chaos while patriots seek lawful immigration enforcement.

Story Snapshot

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy declared DHS’s third-country removal policy unconstitutional on February 26, 2026, but stayed his ruling for fifteen days pending appeal
The policy allows deportation of individuals with final removal orders to countries beyond those designated in their removal proceedings, without meaningful notice or protection hearings
DHS has deported individuals to El Salvador, South Sudan, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, and Cameroon under the policy since June 2025
The Supreme Court previously stayed lower court protections in June 2025, allowing aggressive policy implementation during ongoing litigation

Judge Blocks Policy With Inflammatory Rhetoric

Judge Brian Murphy issued a ruling in D.V.D. v. DHS on February 26, 2026, declaring the administration’s third-country removal policy unlawful and vacating it. Murphy characterized the policy using dramatic language, claiming DHS “may take people and drop them off in parts unknown” without ensuring safety. The ruling requires DHS to pursue removal only to countries designated in removal proceedings, provide meaningful notice before any third-country removal, and offer opportunities to seek protection from persecution. Despite finding the policy unlawful, Murphy stayed his decision for fifteen days to allow government appeal to the First Circuit.

Policy Addresses Practical Deportation Challenges

The third-country removal policy emerged to solve real enforcement problems facing DHS. The policy targets individuals with final removal orders who cannot be deported to their designated countries because they face persecution or torture there, or because those countries refuse or delay accepting their return. In some cases, it applies when origin countries were willing to accept returns. This addresses a longstanding immigration enforcement gap where final removal orders became meaningless because destination countries wouldn’t cooperate or individuals gamed the system by claiming fears they never raised during their original proceedings. The administration sought practical solutions to ensure removal orders have consequences.

Supreme Court Previously Allowed Policy Implementation

The litigation timeline reveals judicial inconsistency creating enforcement uncertainty. Advocacy groups filed the case in March 2025, and a district court initially issued protections requiring due process. DHS rapidly developed a formal third-country removal policy in response, which the district court rejected as insufficient. The Supreme Court intervened on June 23, 2025, staying the district court’s order and allowing the policy to take effect during litigation. This Supreme Court stay demonstrated recognition that executive immigration enforcement authority should proceed while legal challenges are resolved. Murphy’s latest ruling contradicts that approach, creating jurisdictional confusion about which court controls immigration policy during the appeals process.

Documented Removals Show Policy in Action

Since the Supreme Court’s June 2025 stay, DHS has conducted third-country removals to El Salvador, South Sudan, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, and Cameroon. Advocacy organizations claim these removals resulted in harms including deportations of non-Salvadorans to El Salvador, attempted deportations to Libya, continued detention in South Sudan and Eswatini, and deportation of individuals they characterize as recognized refugees. However, these claims come from organizations with litigation interests and advocacy agendas. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued a report examining third-country removal costs and monitoring, suggesting legitimate oversight concerns exist about implementation details rather than the core policy concept.

Broader Immigration Enforcement Context

The third-country removal litigation occurs alongside multiple administration efforts to restore immigration enforcement integrity. The administration is simultaneously seeking Supreme Court approval to end temporary protected status for approximately 6,100 Syrians, after a New York federal judge blocked this action in November 2025. A different federal judge recently blocked ending protections for 350,000 Haitians. The Supreme Court previously allowed the administration to end legal protections for Venezuelan migrants as litigation continues. This pattern reveals how the previous administration’s expansive use of temporary protections created entrenched populations resisting lawful removal, forcing the current administration to pursue multiple legal challenges simultaneously to restore enforcement authority Congress established.

Due Process Claims Miss Enforcement Reality

Advocacy groups frame this policy as denying due process, but individuals subject to third-country removal already received full removal proceedings resulting in final orders. They had opportunities to raise persecution and torture claims during those proceedings. The policy addresses situations where individuals with final orders cannot be removed to designated countries, creating an enforcement dead end. Requiring additional hearings before third-country removal creates infinite procedural loops allowing individuals to delay removal indefinitely. The administration’s position recognizes that constitutional due process rights were satisfied during original removal proceedings, and administrative efficiency requires deportation execution without endless re-litigation. Judge Murphy’s ruling essentially grants individuals who lost their cases additional procedural bites at the apple, undermining finality in immigration proceedings.

Appellate Outcome Remains Uncertain

The fifteen-day stay means the policy continues operating while the government seeks First Circuit intervention. The Supreme Court’s June 2025 willingness to stay lower court protections suggests the conservative majority recognizes executive immigration enforcement authority during litigation. However, the unpredictable nature of emergency appellate relief creates uncertainty for both enforcement operations and affected individuals. If the First Circuit or Supreme Court ultimately upholds Murphy’s ruling, DHS faces fundamental restrictions on third-country removal authority, potentially leaving final removal orders unenforceable when designated countries won’t cooperate. This would reward foreign governments that refuse repatriation and incentivize migrants to claim fears they never raised during proceedings, knowing removal becomes practically impossible.