Federal Judge Rules Donald Trump's Deportation Policy to Third Countries Unlawful

A federal judge in Boston ruled that the Donald Trump administration's policy of deporting migrants to third countries is unlawful. This ruling strikes at one of the most controversial legal instruments used by the Department of Homeland Security to manage the influx of migrants at the US southern border. The court argued that the practice of sending people to countries with which they have no relations violates procedures and human rights. This decision means the immediate suspension of deportation flights that aimed to bypass standard asylum pathways through rapid transfers to third countries. The Trump administration had sought to maximally secure the borders since the start of its term, relying on a broad interpretation of executive powers in national security. Critics accused the government that this policy prevents proper verification of asylum claims and endangers migrants in countries unprepared to receive them. The judge in Boston sided with these arguments, pointing to the lack of legal basis for such radical actions. This ruling is part of a longer series of legal disputes between migrant rights defenders and the White House, which regularly end up in federal courts at various levels. The federal judiciary in the US has for decades played the role of a safety valve, verifying the constitutionality of presidential decisions, which has repeatedly led to the blocking of immigration reforms under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The administration's reaction to the ruling was predictable — officials announced plans to take legal steps to appeal the decision. Government representatives argue that the authority to manage borders is the exclusive domain of the executive branch, especially in crisis situations. Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations and human rights lawyers welcomed the ruling with enthusiasm, seeing it as a victory for the rule of law over political arbitrariness. The case will likely find its conclusion in an appellate court, and potentially even in the Supreme Court, which could shape the future of the US asylum system. „This is yet another activist judge trying to undermine our efforts to secure the borders. We will fight and we will win.” — President of the United States, whose immigration policy was challenged by the court. Analysts emphasize that this ruling has not only legal but also operational significance, as it forces border services to return to standard, much slower procedures. This may lead to an increase in the number of people waiting in detention centers for their cases to be processed. This situation presents the administration with a logistical challenge while giving the political opposition arguments against the previous migration management strategy.