Appeals Court Denies Trump Administration’s Request to Expedite Deportations to Third Countries

April 7, 2025 TruthUSA

A district court determined that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in demonstrating that the policy infringed upon their constitutional right to due process.

A federal appeals court has rejected the Trump administration’s request to lift a temporary restraining order that prevents the government from hastening the deportation of undocumented immigrants with final removal orders to new countries without first allowing those individuals the opportunity to assert that they would face harm or torture if sent there.

In an April 7 order, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied the Department of Justice’s emergency motion to stay a nationwide order from March 28, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, which restricts the Trump administration from deporting foreigners to third countries that were not previously specified during their immigration proceedings. The district court found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail in proving that the policy violated their constitutional right to due process.

The First Circuit chose not to intervene, highlighting that Murphy’s temporary restraining order is limited in duration and subject to prompt review in an upcoming preliminary injunction hearing. The appeals court also raised concerns about its jurisdiction at this juncture, emphasizing that temporary restraining orders are generally not appealable unless they produce significant, irreversible consequences.

This case was initiated by four undocumented immigrants from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, and Guatemala, who claim that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has instituted a policy encouraging officials to re-detain individuals previously released from custody and deport them to third countries—nations not identified during their initial immigration proceedings—without proper notification or an opportunity to present fear-based claims. The plaintiffs are seeking class certification and a broader injunction against what they characterize as a perilous and unlawful practice.

In his March 28 ruling, Murphy determined that the government must furnish individuals with written notice and a genuine opportunity to seek protection under U.S. law, including the Convention Against Torture, prior to their deportation to third countries where they have no established connections.

In its emergency motion, the Justice Department contended that the court overstepped its authority by imposing new procedural obligations on the executive branch and interfering with the administration’s legal authority to carry out removals.

“The district court has overstepped its bounds, encroaching upon core executive powers and imposing significant practical effects on the President’s ability to direct foreign affairs, including dealings with allies who may be willing to accept non-citizens,” DOJ lawyers stated.

The DOJ also highlighted a new directive from DHS that was issued in response to the district court’s ruling. This guidance mandates that any country receiving a deportee under these circumstances provide diplomatic assurances that the individual will not experience persecution or torture. DOJ attorneys argued that in addition to this guidance, undocumented immigrants may raise protection claims through existing administrative channels, such as filing a motion to reopen with DHS, immigration courts, or the Board of Immigration Appeals.

“Plaintiffs emphasize the lack of notification regarding the country of removal as if their fears hinge on receiving that notice. This is not the case,” DOJ attorneys asserted, claiming that the administrative process is adequate and that plaintiffs are pursuing relief in district court merely for convenience.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys contested this in court filings, arguing that current administrative routes are inadequate and inaccessible for many individuals. They contend that without prior notice of the destination country, undocumented immigrants lack a meaningful opportunity to present protection claims before they are en route or at the moment of removal.

“Defendants claim unrestricted authority to deport noncitizens to nations not previously identified in immigration proceedings without providing any notification of the destination country, thus denying any meaningful opportunity to seek protection from persecution or torture in that unidentified country,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys asserted.

They further noted that a motion to reopen is not a viable remedy for many deportees, especially those who are detained, unrepresented, or unaware of their destination until it is too late to take action.

The Justice Department did not provide a comment regarding the appellate court’s decision by the time of publication.

The case will now return to the district court, where Murphy is anticipated to conduct a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction in the coming days. The outcome of this hearing could determine whether the restrictions on third-country deportations remain in place for the duration of the litigation.

Source link