Federal appeals judges grant temporary reprieve allowing third-country deportations to continue while legal battle advances.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
A federal appeals court on Wednesday granted the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court ruling that would have blocked the deportation of illegal immigrants to third countries, providing the administration temporary relief as the case moves toward an expected Supreme Court review.
The decision came hours before the lower court’s order was scheduled to take effect, according to reporting by Fox News.
Administration lawyers had appealed last week to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit after a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy threatened to halt deportations carried out under the third-country removal policy.
Government attorneys argued Murphy’s order would create what they described as an “unworkable scheme” that could disrupt diplomatic negotiations with foreign governments and interfere with thousands of planned deportations.
They also contended that the district court decision conflicted with two emergency rulings issued previously by the Supreme Court that allowed the administration to continue its deportation practices while legal challenges proceed.
Officials in the administration have indicated the case is likely to ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.
Murphy, a federal judge appointed during the Biden administration, ruled last month that the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country deportation process violated constitutional due process protections.
The policy allows migrants to be deported to countries other than their country of origin if those nations agree to accept them.
In his 81-page decision, Murphy said the administration must first attempt to deport individuals to their home country or to another destination previously designated during immigration proceedings before considering removal to a third country.
He also ruled that migrants must be provided advance notice and an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution in the country where they might be sent.
Murphy wrote that the policy “fails to satisfy due process for a raft of reasons, not least of which is that nobody really knows anything about these purported ‘assurances.’”
The judge delayed implementation of his order for 15 days to give the administration time to appeal.
Without intervention from the appeals court, the ruling would have taken effect Thursday.
Officials at the Department of Homeland Security have defended the administration’s authority to deport individuals to third countries, particularly when their home nations refuse to accept them.
In earlier comments, former Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said the policy is necessary to prevent dangerous offenders from remaining in the United States.
“If these activist judges had their way, aliens who are so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won’t take them back, including convicted murderers, child rapists and drug traffickers, would walk free on American streets,” McLaughlin said in June when the Supreme Court temporarily allowed the deportation policy to continue.
Murphy has overseen the case for several months as part of a class-action lawsuit brought by migrants challenging deportations to countries including South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica and Guatemala.
The judge has also clashed with administration officials during earlier stages of the litigation.
In May, Murphy accused the government of failing to comply with a court directive involving six migrants who had been deported to South Sudan without what he determined to be adequate notice or legal process.
He later ordered that the individuals remain in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti until they were given an opportunity to complete “reasonable fear interviews” to assess whether they faced potential persecution or torture if transferred to South Sudan.
Murphy acknowledged in prior rulings that some of the individuals involved in the case had criminal records but said those circumstances did not alter constitutional protections.
“The court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories,” Murphy wrote.
“But that does not change due process,” he added. “The court treats its obligation to these principles with the seriousness that anyone committed to the rule of law should understand.”
Original article
Comments