A federal judge has ordered the U.S. Government to assist in the return of Venezuelan migrants who were deported to El Salvador, a move stemming from a practice widely criticized for circumventing legal protections against deportation to countries where individuals face persecution. The ruling, issued earlier this week, underscores growing legal challenges to the Trump Administration’s policy of sending non-citizens to third countries, often with little connection to the deportee’s background.
The practice gained prominence in March 2025, when the Administration deported over two hundred Venezuelans to the Centro de Confinamiento de Terroristas (CECOT), a mega-prison in El Salvador notorious for its brutal conditions. Since then, the Administration has continued to deport large numbers of non-citizens to these “third countries,” often as a workaround for judicial orders preventing deportation to their home countries due to fears of persecution. While some deportees have subsequently been repatriated, others remain incarcerated in foreign prisons.
More recently, the Administration deported nine individuals of various nationalities to Cameroon in January, where they are currently being held in detention pending their agreement to return to their countries of origin, according to NPR. This latest action has intensified scrutiny of the legal basis for these deportations.
Ahilan Arulanantham, a law professor at UCLA and faculty co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy, explained that the legality of these third-country deportations is questionable on multiple fronts. “The Administration’s recent arrangement with Cameroon resulted in the imprisonment of these nine people in Cameroon, and, at least in the reporting that I’ve read, most of them will be imprisoned unless they agree to proceed back to their home country. So that’s punishment. When you send somebody to a place to be imprisoned, that is imprisonment without trial,” he said.
Arulanantham further argued that even in cases where immediate imprisonment doesn’t occur, the deportations are unlawful as deportees are not given a fair opportunity to challenge the transfer. He pointed to the case of Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., a class-action lawsuit challenging the government’s practice of sending people to third countries without providing notice or a chance to contest the legality of the arrangement. A lower court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, requiring the government to provide notice, but the Supreme Court stayed that order in April without explanation, allowing the deportations to continue.
The legal framework governing these deportations dictates that a non-citizen is typically allowed to choose the country to which they will be deported following a removal hearing. But, if their preferred country is unavailable – perhaps due to a risk of torture, as determined by an immigration judge – the government must explore other options, including countries of transit or former residency. Even in these cases, Arulanantham emphasized, the deportee must be informed of the intended destination and given an opportunity to challenge the removal.
The Supreme Court’s decision to stay the lower court’s order in D.V.D. has effectively allowed the Administration to continue these third-country removals without providing that opportunity. The case is expected to return to the Supreme Court, but the timing remains uncertain, leaving the fate of numerous deportees in limbo. The Administration has not commented on the ongoing legal challenges or its future plans regarding third-country deportations.
