Court Rules Against Government on Deportation Policy, Cites Rights to Due Process

On Friday, a federal judge in Massachusetts threw a big wrench into the Trump administration’s plans to remove immigrants to countries they are not from quickly and supposedly without due process.

There was a sharp 48-page memorandum and order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who was appointed by Joe Biden. It named a group of people who can fight the government’s widely unpopular plans to deport people and stopped any such plans from going forward.

The judge posed the question as one that could lead to violence.

In this case, there is an easy question: must someone be told where they are going and given a chance to tell the US that they might be killed if sent there before the US sends them against their will? Murphy wrote.

Late last month, the judge in Boston issued a temporary blocking order that stopped people from being sent to third countries without first getting approval from another judge. This was based on the idea that the government had probably already broken the Convention Against Torture or would probably do so soon.

The restraining order was given by the judge on March 28 after a motion hearing. During the hearing, the court scolded lawyers for the Department of Justice for saying that the deportations “would not be violative of any policy or practice” under U.S. law or treaty obligations.

Judge told the government, “That’s a very surprising thing to hear if your position today is that we don’t have to give them any notice and we can send them to any country other than the country to which the immigration court has said no.” This was reported by NBC News from the courtroom.

The next day, a note describing the order came after.

“To put it simply, the government didn’t seem to care that deportations that broke the Convention Against Torture could happen right away and on a regular basis in the days before the preliminary injunction. The Court does not share the same lack of concern for likely violations of due process protected by the Constitution and listed in both statute and treaty,” Murphy wrote.

The ruling released on Friday backs up the earlier order. It will now stay in place while the rest of the lawsuit is heard in district court.

When the judge issued the injunction, he or she criticized the legal views taken by the Trump administration from a wide range of sources.

In the opinion, the defendants say that the US can send an alien that is deportable to a country that is not their home country or where an immigration judge has ordered that they be sent, where they could be tortured and killed right away, without giving that person a chance to tell the authorities that they are in grave danger or death because of being deported. “The Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and all nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States all disagree.”

The court said it was clear from the record that the government has sent people back to countries they have no ties to, since officials have admitted to doing so and said such actions are legal.

The judge spoke out against this situation for a long time:

The Court finds it likely that Defendants have applied and will continue to apply the alleged policy of removing aliens to third countries without notice and an opportunity to be heard on fear-based claims — in other words, without due process. Defendants have repeatedly argued that they have no obligation to provide any process whatsoever when newly designating a third country for removal. Defendants’ own avowed position and the numerous declarations Plaintiffs have provided substantiate both the prior and future use of Defendants’ policy of providing no notice prior to third-country removal.

That the government said those things was not true, the court said, and they only helped the people who were suing.

“This time, the harm that is being threatened is clear and simple: death, torture, and persecution,” Murphy says. “It’s hard to think of more permanent damage.”

The injunction says that the government has to “give written notice” to all immigrants and their lawyers about where they might be deported. This gives them a “meaningful opportunity” to talk about their fears about what might happen in those countries in line with the torture convention. They also have another chance to “seek to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal.”

The judge said that immigrants must be given at least 15 days to fight their removal to a third country.

The court’s order to certify the class applies across the country to any immigrant that the government has a final removal order against.

The judge says the problem is easy and the people who are suing are asking for “a limited and measured remedy.” This stops the government’s big plans to speed up deportations.

Murphy says, “Plaintiffs are only asking to be told they are going to be deported to a new country before they are taken there, and to be given a chance to explain why they think being deported will likely lead to their persecution, torture, or death.” “The Constitution of the United States requires this small amount of due process.”