Judge Limits Trump Admin’s Ability to Deport Illegal Immigrants Held at Guantanamo

The judge ruled no detainee can be removed from Guantanamo Bay to a third country without first being given a chance to assert fear-based protection claims.

A military flight carrying illegal immigrant members of the Tren de Aragua gang to Guantanamo Bay prepares to depart El Paso, Texas, on Feb. 4, 2025. Department of Homeland Security

A federal judge in Massachusetts has further restricted the Trump administration’s ability to deport illegal immigrants from Guantanamo Bay without due process, issuing an amended preliminary injunction that expands protections for noncitizens held at the U.S. naval base.

The April 30 order from U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy modifies a previous injunction issued April 18, clarifying that no removals from Guantanamo Bay to third countries may proceed unless detainees are first given an opportunity to raise claims of potential persecution or torture.

The modification comes after government attorneys said during an April 28 hearing that recent deportations from Guantanamo were carried out by the Department of Defense without direction or knowledge from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). While Murphy did not resolve the accuracy of that claim, he stated that “in an abundance of caution,” any such removals must comply with the protections outlined in his earlier ruling.

“Prior to removing, or allowing or permitting another agency to remove, an alien from Guantanamo Bay to a third country,” the administration must comply “with the terms of the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction by providing the due-process guarantees” outlined in the injunction, Murphy wrote in April 30’s paperless order.

The case centers on a Trump administration policy that plaintiffs say enables U.S. officials to deport noncitizens to countries other than their home nations, without notice or a chance to object based on fear of harm. The four named plaintiffs, from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, and Guatemala, had all previously been granted protection from deportation to their countries of origin. They allege DHS began using Guantanamo Bay as a transfer point for third-country removals that sidestep legal safeguards.

In his original ruling earlier in April, Murphy criticized DHS guidance that allows removals based on blanket diplomatic assurances rather than individual risk assessments. He found that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their claim that the policy violated the Fifth Amendment’s due-process clause and provisions of the Convention Against Torture.

Murphy’s April 18 preliminary injunction required DHS to notify affected individuals of any planned third-country transfer and give them a chance to raise a fear-based protection claim before removal. He also ordered DHS to facilitate the return of at least one plaintiff who was deported to Mexico, in violation of prior protections.

Now, in response to plaintiffs’ allegations during court hearings that the Defense Department may be carrying out removals through Guantanamo in coordination with DHS, the judge has made clear that inter-agency removals must still comply with due process.

“At the April 28, 2025 hearing, the status of the Guantanamo Bay Detention Center was debated,” Murphy wrote in the April 30 order.

“The Court declines to resolve if transportation to this base is a deportation to a third country despite the United States’ exercise of jurisdiction and control over the base.

“Given the position taken by the Government that the deportation from Guantanamo to third countries was not at the direction, behest or control of the Department of Homeland Security, a debated issue to be resolved once preliminary discovery has been conducted, this Court ORDERS that, after taking custody of an alien, Defendants may not cede custody or control in any manner that prevents an alien from receiving the due-process guarantees outlined in the April 18, 2025 preliminary injunction,” he added.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has argued that the policy falls within the executive branch’s broad discretion over immigration and foreign affairs. In court filings, government attorneys objected to the amended injunction, saying it imposes new obligations while an appeal is pending and raises issues not yet fully briefed.

The DOJ did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the judge’s ruling, which marks the latest development in a legal battle with implications for the Trump administration’s ability to deport illegal immigrants to third countries.

President Donald Trump has made immigration enforcement a key pillar of his second-term policy platform, vowing to carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.