By Micah Jonah, February 26, 2026
A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump violated the law by rapidly deporting migrants to countries other than their own without giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge their removal.
US District Judge, Brian Murphy declared the policy unlawful on Wednesday, stating that migrants cannot be sent to unfamiliar or potentially dangerous countries without due process protections guaranteed under the US Constitution.
In his decision, Murphy emphasized that no person in the United States may be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. He rejected the administration’s argument that deportations to third countries were acceptable so long as authorities were not aware of specific threats awaiting migrants upon arrival.
The ruling represents another legal setback for Trump’s immigration crackdown, which has prioritized swift removals of undocumented migrants and others deemed in violation of immigration laws. Critics argue that the administration’s approach has frequently bypassed procedural safeguards, including the right to appeal.
Murphy noted that the speed of the deportations made it difficult for courts to assess the legality of individual cases, particularly when officials did not clearly disclose the intended country of removal.
The judge delayed implementation of his order for 15 days to allow the administration, including the Department of Homeland Security, time to appeal. The case could ultimately be taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States, which previously overturned a related injunction Murphy issued in 2025.
That earlier dispute involved attempts to deport migrants to South Sudan despite concerns about human rights conditions.
The latest ruling stems from a class action lawsuit brought by immigrants facing removal to countries with which they have no ties. Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, representing the plaintiffs, described the decision as a strong affirmation of constitutional protections.
The case adds to ongoing legal battles over the scope of executive authority in immigration enforcement and the limits imposed by constitutional due process guarantees.
