A recent decision by a federal judge appointed by President Joe Biden has reignited the legal debate over the Trump-era immigration policy concerning third-country deportations. The ruling, made by Judge Brian E. Murphy, has stirred controversy as it challenges the Supreme Court’s prior decisions on the matter.

Background on the Deportation Policy

The policy under scrutiny involves deporting migrants to countries that are not specified in their removal orders, often referred to as “third-country deportations.” This policy was implemented during the Trump administration, aiming to streamline the deportation process. However, it has faced legal challenges on the grounds that it violates migrants’ due process rights by not allowing adequate time to contest the deportations based on potential risks, such as torture in the receiving countries.

Judge Murphy’s Controversial Ruling

Judge Murphy’s recent 81-page decision declared the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) processes for these deportations unlawful. The ruling emphasized that the procedures fail to provide sufficient time for migrants to express fears of harm in the third countries to which they are deported, thus breaching their legal rights.

“The Department’s current protocols do not align with the due process afforded under U.S. law,” Judge Murphy stated in his ruling.

Supreme Court’s Previous Intervention

Earlier, the Supreme Court had intervened by staying Judge Murphy’s preliminary injunction against the DHS policy in a decisive 6-3 order. This was followed by a rare 7-2 opinion admonishing Murphy for not adhering to their ruling. The Supreme Court made it clear that his subsequent orders should not enforce the original injunction they had stayed.

Justice Elena Kagan, though initially agreeing with Murphy’s decision to block the deportations, joined the majority in the Supreme Court’s follow-up opinion. She noted, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”

Potential Implications and Next Steps

The Department of Justice, displeased with Murphy’s persistence, sought clarification from the Supreme Court, labeling his actions as a “lawless act of defiance” against the high court’s authority. Solicitor General John Sauer emphasized the ongoing challenges faced by the Executive Branch due to the legal uncertainty.

The Supreme Court’s unusual suggestion that the government might seek a writ of mandamus—a rare directive compelling a lower court to follow the law—highlights the serious nature of this judicial standoff. The situation underscores the tension between federal judiciary authority and executive immigration policies.

This case continues to unfold, with potential ramifications for both the future of immigration policy and the balance of power between the judiciary and executive branches. Observers and legal experts alike are keenly watching the developments, expecting further legal battles and possibly another Supreme Court review.

Originally reported by foxnews.com. Rewritten by 360DailyTrend editorial staff.