type: timeline_event U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of the District of Massachusetts issued a final ruling on the merits on February 25, 2026, finding that the DHS policy of deporting migrants to countries they had never lived in—without notice or any opportunity to contest the destination—violated both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The ruling represented one of the most significant judicial checks on the administration's deportation authority, addressing a practice that had drawn condemnation from international human rights organizations.
The court documented harrowing specific cases that illustrated the policy's consequences. Eight migrants who had been ordered removed with South Sudan listed as their destination were instead rerouted to Djibouti, a country with which they had no connection. In a particularly devastating case, a Guatemalan man whose immigration judge had specifically barred removal to Guatemala due to a well-documented risk of sexual violence was sent to Mexico, then deported onward to Guatemala—where he was raped. The case demonstrated that the third-country deportation policy was not merely a procedural irregularity but a practice that directly caused the kind of harm that international law was designed to prevent.
Judge Murphy paused the ruling for 15 days to allow the government to appeal, recognizing the significant policy implications of the decision. The ruling set up a direct judicial confrontation over the scope of executive deportation authority: whether the president could order the removal of individuals to any country in the world regardless of that person's nationality, connections, or safety, or whether statutory and treaty obligations imposed meaningful limits. The government was expected to seek an immediate stay from the First Circuit, making this one of several immigration cases likely headed for eventual Supreme Court review during a term already dominated by executive power questions.