U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy issued an 81-page opinion in late February 2026 setting aside the Trump administration’s guidance for deporting immigrants to “third countries” without meaningful notice and an opportunity to object, concluding the policy violates due process protections and undermines challenges under U.S. and international anti-torture safeguards.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, a federal judge in Massachusetts, issued an 81-page decision on February 25, 2026, invalidating Department of Homeland Security guidance that allowed deportations to “third countries” — nations where the deportee is not a citizen — on short notice and without a meaningful opportunity to challenge the destination on safety grounds. The ruling was stayed for 15 days to give the government time to appeal.
Murphy concluded that the policy deprived affected immigrants of due process by withholding critical information about where they would be sent and by moving quickly enough to prevent timely court challenges. He wrote that the government’s approach could “extinguish” valid objections by carrying out removals before detainees can raise country-specific dangers in court.
The litigation has focused on removals of people who cannot be sent to their home countries because immigration authorities or courts have already determined they face a risk of persecution or torture there. Murphy has previously ordered that people subject to third-country removals must receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to object if they fear torture or death in the proposed destination.
The case has also drawn attention to removals involving South Sudan, a destination the U.S. State Department warns Americans not to visit because of crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. In earlier proceedings related to removals to South Sudan, Murphy said the government’s rushed notice made it impossible for detainees to meaningfully object.
In court proceedings earlier in the case, Murphy pressed Justice Department lawyer Mary Larakers about whether the government’s position allowed third-country deportations without telling detainees their destination or giving them a chance to be heard. According to a court transcript cited in the docket, Larakers told the court that DHS’s position was that detainees did not have such a right.
The Supreme Court has previously allowed the administration to proceed with third-country removals while litigation continued, including allowing a flight carrying several migrants to complete its trip to South Sudan. Murphy’s February 2026 ruling nonetheless found that DHS’s operative guidance must be set aside because, as implemented, it failed to provide the constitutionally required notice and opportunity to object.
Advocacy groups involved in the broader legal fight have argued that detailed judicial findings in the case help build a record of how the policy operates in practice and may shape future appellate review, particularly as courts weigh the balance between immigration enforcement and procedural safeguards. Murphy’s opinion, however, did not declare all third-country deportations categorically unlawful; instead, it focused on the lack of adequate process under the administration’s guidance.
