A federal judge in Boston issued a final merits ruling that Trump's third-country deportation policy violates immigration law and due process, setting up a likely Supreme Court return.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued a final merits ruling on Feb. 25, 2026, holding that the Trump administration's policy of removing migrants to third countries, nations other than the migrants' home countries, without notice or an opportunity to object violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Convention Against Torture [1]. Murphy ordered the government to provide "meaningful notice" before executing any such removal [1]. He simultaneously stayed his ruling for 15 days to permit the administration to seek appellate relief [1].
The case, D.V.D. et al. v. Department of Homeland Security, is a class action filed in the District of Massachusetts challenging rapid third-country removals carried out by Immigration and Customs Enforcement [1]. Murphy characterized the decision as his final ruling on the merits, a framing that distinguishes it from the preliminary injunctions he entered earlier in the litigation [1]. The National Immigration Litigation Alliance and the ACLU are among the organizations representing the plaintiff class [1].
The ruling arrives in procedurally charged circumstances. The Supreme Court previously stayed an earlier Murphy injunction in this same dispute, and ICE responded to that stay by issuing internal guidance authorizing third-country removals in windows as short as six hours [1]. Murphy's final merits determination now squarely contradicts the administration's operational posture, holding that speed alone cannot substitute for the due-process protections Congress and treaty obligations require [1].
The substantive significance is considerable. Prior judicial interventions in this line of cases reached procedural or preliminary-injunction questions. A final merits ruling carries greater precedential weight and forces any reviewing court to engage with the statutory and constitutional arguments on the full record rather than on a likelihood-of-success standard [1]. The ruling creates a direct conflict between a federal district court's definitive legal conclusions and an active, large-scale executive enforcement program.
The 15-day stay sets an immediate litigation clock. The administration is expected to seek a stay from the First Circuit or return to the Supreme Court, which has already intervened once in the case [1]. If the Supreme Court accepts emergency review again, it will face not a preliminary posture but a fully adjudicated merits record, raising the stakes for any ruling the justices issue on third-country removals.