Judge Warns Against Migrant Deportations to Libya \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge warned the Trump administration that deporting migrants to Libya without a chance to contest the move violates a standing court order. The alert follows reports that detainees in Texas were pressured to agree to removal to Libya, despite its known human rights violations. The Department of Homeland Security has not confirmed the deportation plans.
Quick Looks
- Judge Brian Murphy ruled any deportation to Libya must allow migrants to challenge it.
- Lawyers say migrants in Texas were told they’d be sent to Libya or Saudi Arabia.
- DHS Secretary Kristi Noem would not confirm deportation plans.
- Deporting to third countries violates prior court rulings on due process.
- ICE agents allegedly pressured detainees to sign Libya removal forms.
- Judge demanded the government disclose all related deportation claims.
- Libya has a documented history of migrant abuse and detention.
- Court ruling mandates “meaningful opportunity” for migrants to argue for safety.
- Some migrants were allegedly threatened with solitary confinement to gain compliance.
- Trump administration has deported migrants to Panama, Costa Rica, and El Salvador.
Deep Look
A federal judge in Massachusetts issued a stern warning Wednesday to the Trump administration, stating that any effort to deport migrants to Libya — or any third country — without giving them a proper opportunity to contest the removal would be a clear violation of a standing court order.
The statement from U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy came in response to alarming reports from immigration attorneys, who claimed that migrants detained in South Texas were told they would be sent to Libya, a country with a notorious record of abusing detained migrants and failing to uphold human rights.
According to filings submitted to the court, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers allegedly gathered a group of detainees in a room and demanded they sign documents agreeing to their removal to Libya. When they refused, attorneys say the detainees were forcibly separated, put in isolation, and pressured further.
“When they all refused, they were each put in a separate room and cuffed in (basically, solitary) in order to get them to sign it,” lawyers reported in their court filing.
This action would directly contravene Murphy’s March ruling, which prohibits the U.S. government from deporting migrants to countries that are not their country of origin without first offering them a “meaningful opportunity” to argue that such a removal could endanger their lives or safety.
Legal and Ethical Red Flags
Murphy’s rebuke adds to growing concern among immigrant rights advocates about the Trump administration’s deportation tactics. While the administration has long emphasized expedited removals and increased deportations, the idea of sending individuals to third-party nations where they hold no legal status or ties has stirred legal and ethical outrage.
Libya, in particular, is seen as an extremely dangerous destination for deportees. Reports from international human rights organizations have consistently documented detention, torture, human trafficking, and widespread abuse of migrants in Libyan custody. The United Nations and Amnesty International have issued repeated warnings about the conditions faced by foreign nationals there.
Some migrants, lawyers said, were also told they could be sent to Saudi Arabia, another country with a deeply criticized record on civil liberties, freedom of expression, and migrant worker treatment.
If confirmed, these would represent an escalation of an ongoing Trump policy of removing individuals to third countries — a move that raises significant due process concerns and could violate international asylum protections.
DHS and White House Responses
At a news conference in Illinois, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem declined to confirm media reports of the Libya deportation effort, saying only, “I can’t confirm that.” When asked, President Trump redirected questions to the Department of Homeland Security.
Judge Murphy, however, made clear that any attempt to carry out such deportations without a legal hearing would not only undermine court authority but potentially expose vulnerable individuals to grave danger. He ordered the government to provide detailed information on any such plans.
A Pattern of Risky Removals
This is not the first time the administration has faced scrutiny over deporting individuals to third countries. The Trump-era DHS has previously sent:
- Venezuelans to a prison in El Salvador
- Non-citizens to Panama and Costa Rica, where they had no legal status
- Small groups of detainees to countries with no established U.S. repatriation agreements
Although the number of people affected by these third-country deportations is relatively small — reportedly in the hundreds — the consequences can be severe. Advocates argue these removals often happen without proper notification to families or legal counsel, raising urgent questions about transparency and human rights compliance.
The detention tactics described by lawyers — including solitary confinement and coercion — could also lead to further legal challenges, especially if individuals were misled or intimidated into signing deportation waivers.
The Bigger Picture
This case unfolds amid a broader political and legal battle over the boundaries of immigration enforcement, particularly in an election year. Trump has made aggressive deportation plans a central pillar of his campaign, promising mass removals and expanding non-citizen deportation policies.
But as this case shows, there remains a federal judicial check on how far immigration policies can go, particularly when basic legal protections — like the right to challenge removal to a dangerous country — are at risk of being ignored.
Judge Murphy’s ruling reiterates that the government cannot sidestep due process, even under the guise of immigration enforcement.
“Allegedly imminent removals to Libya,” Murphy wrote, “would clearly violate this Court’s Order.”
For now, the fate of those detained migrants remains uncertain, but their case may shape future immigration enforcement limits — especially when safety and legality clash.
Judge Warns Against Migrant
You must Register or Login to post a comment.