A federal judge in Boston on Wednesday tossed out a Department of Homeland Security policy that let officials rapidly deport migrants to countries other than their home nations, ruling the practice unlawful and ordering it scrapped. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy entered a final judgment but put enforcement on hold for 15 days so the government has a window to appeal.
Murphy found that the policy, laid out in an internal March memo and follow-up guidance, allowed people to be shipped overseas without a meaningful chance to explain fears of persecution or torture, according to Reuters. The case grew out of a class action attacking removals to countries that had not been named in migrants' original removal orders, and the government has already signaled it intends to seek fast-track review.
Supreme Court Already Stepped In Once
This is not the first time the dispute has landed on a national stage. Murphy issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025, only to see it temporarily blocked when the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in on June 23, 2025 with an emergency order that allowed some third-country removals to resume while appeals played out. As the court's emergency order reflects, FindLaw notes that Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, warning that the stay risked exposing vulnerable people to torture.
What The Internal Memos Allowed On The Ground
The Department of Homeland Security's March 30, 2025 memo, along with later ICE guidance, laid out two main paths for these removals. In one track, deportations could proceed if a receiving country offered what officials deemed "credible diplomatic assurances." In the other, when there were no such assurances, migrants could be given very short notice and were expected to raise any fears on their own initiative. The Third Country Deportations tracker has catalogued those internal documents and flight records. USCRI has followed the guidance and what happened afterward, and reporting on a July ICE memo found that in exigent circumstances officers could carry out removals with as little as six hours' notice, according to ThePrint.
Appeals On Deck, With A Return Trip To D.C. Possible
The government has already filed notices of appeal in the First Circuit, and Murphy's decision to pause his own ruling for 15 days was designed to give officials time to pursue expedited review, according to court filings. If the administration presses ahead and ultimately loses at the appellate level, the fight could again land at the Supreme Court. The public docket, including the filings and notices in the case, is available on Justia.
High Stakes In Law And Politics
At its core, the clash is a legal one. The plaintiffs argued, and Murphy agreed, that the policy short-circuited basic due process safeguards and ran afoul of the Convention Against Torture's ban on refoulement. The government countered that its guidance met the requirements of federal law and diplomacy. The controversy has also drawn attention on Capitol Hill. A February 2026 Senate Foreign Relations Committee minority report described millions of dollars in payments and other costs tied to third-country arrangements and warned that oversight of those deals was weak, according to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (minority report).
For Boston, the ruling underscores how the Moakley federal courthouse remains a major testing ground for fast-changing immigration policy. For migrants and their lawyers, the real-world impact will depend on what happens in the appeals court and whether higher courts leave Murphy's order in place. That 15-day pause is now the tight window in which both sides must press their next move.
