Top US court hands Trump a win on deportations as SCOTUS challenge looms

A federal appeals court on Wednesday granted the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court order that blocked it from deporting illegal immigrants to so-called “third countries” — granting a near-term reprieve to the administration just hours before the lower court’s order was slated to take effect.

Trump administration lawyers had appealed the ruling to the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals last week, arguing that the order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy created an “unworkable scheme” that threatened to derail sensitive negotiations with outside countries, and risked derailing up to “thousands” of planned deportations. 

They also argued Murphy’s ruling cut against two previous Supreme Court emergency stays last year, after the high court intervened and allowed the administration to continue its deportation policy, for now. 

US JUDGE ACCUSES TRUMP ADMIN OF ‘MANUFACTURING CHAOS’ IN SOUTH SUDAN DEPORTATIONS, ESCALATING FEUD

The case is all but certain to be punted to the high court for a full review on its merits, as senior Trump administration officials acknowledged earlier this year.

Murphy, a Biden appointee, sided with migrants last month in his 81-page ruling, determining that the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal process — or the process by which migrants are removed from the U.S. to a country other than their country of origin — is unlawful and violates due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

He ruled that the Trump administration must first try to deport the migrants to their home country, or to a country of removal previously designated by an immigration judge. Only after that process, he said, could migrants be removed to a third country, so long as “meaningful notice” is provided, as well as the opportunity for the migrants to raise any fear of persecution in the third country identified for their removal under a so-called “reasonable fear” interview.

The third-country removal 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,’” Murphy wrote in his ruling, though he stayed it from taking force for 15 days in order to give the administration time to appeal.

Barring intervention from the U.S. appeals court, the order was slated to take force on Thursday. 

FEDERAL JUDGES IN NEW YORK AND TEXAS BLOCK TRUMP DEPORTATIONS AFTER SCOTUS RULING

DHS officials have previously claimed an “undisputed authority” to deport criminal illegal migrants to third countries that have agreed to accept them. 

“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,” former Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in June, after the Supreme Court temporarily permitted the Trump administration to continue its deportation policy amid legal challenges. 

Murphy had presided for months over a class-action lawsuit filed by migrants challenging deportations to third countries, including South Sudan, El Salvador, and both Costa Rica and Guatemala, which the Trump administration has reportedly eyed in its ongoing wave of deportations.

He has sparred with the Trump administration while overseeing the case, including in May, when he accused the administration of failing to comply with a court order requiring it to keep in U.S. custody six migrants who were deported to South Sudan without due process or notice.

‘WOEFULLY INSUFFICIENT’: US JUDGE REAMS TRUMP ADMIN FOR DAYS-LATE DEPORTATION INFO

Murphy previously ordered that the migrants remain in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti until each of them could be given a “reasonable fear interview,” or a chance to explain to U.S. officials any fear of persecution or torture, should they be released into South Sudanese custody.  

Murphy previously acknowledged the criminal histories in question after Trump officials blasted the individuals removed as the “worst of the worst.”

“The court recognizes that the class members at issue here have criminal histories,” Murphy wrote in an order last year.

“But that does not change due process,” he wrote. “The court treats its obligation to these principles with the seriousness that anyone committed to the rule of law should understand.”