Supreme Court Lets Trump Resume Third-Country Deportations Without Notice

Supreme Court Allows Third-Country Deportations to Resume

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration's request to resume third-country deportations without prior notice while the court hears arguments on the policy in December. [1] The order puts on hold a federal judge’s ruling that required notice and a meaningful chance for migrants to argue they faced risk of persecution or torture in the destination country. [1] The court’s conservative majority issued the stay over the dissents of the three liberal justices without providing an explanation. [1] The justices directed briefing on questions including whether the lower court had jurisdiction and whether the policy violates immigration law or due process. [1] The new decision will apply while the justices consider the government’s appeal. [1] The court’s conservative majority didn’t offer an explanation, but the order signals the administration may have the upper hand. [1]

Background on the Lower Court Rulings

The Supreme Court’s action temporarily put on hold a lower-court ruling that had restricted the administration’s so-called third-country deportation policy. [4] The decision followed a ruling by a Boston-based federal district judge, Brian Murphy, who had found the Department of Homeland Security’s policy unlawful. [4] The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals on Sept. 18 largely upheld Murphy’s ruling, finding that migrants should have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture before being deported to a third country. [4] The justices granted the administration's request to stay a February ruling from a federal district court in Massachusetts that imposed additional procedural requirements before illegal immigrants could be removed to countries other than their own. [5] The high court also agreed to hear the administration's challenge, treating its emergency application as a petition for review and ordering the parties to prepare for arguments during the court's December session. [5]

Administration’s Position and Use of the Policy

The administration argues third-country removals are an essential tool to deport individuals, including criminal aliens, when their home countries refuse to accept them. [3] In a brief to the Supreme Court, opponents of lifting the restrictions argued that the lower court ruling did not fully block all third-country deportations, "it simply requires them to do so lawfully." [3] Trump's solicitor general, John Sauer, meanwhile told the court that the rapid deportation to third countries was "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens." [3] More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, with the majority sent to Mexico and others to several African nations. [4] The administration has also carried out deportations to several African countries, including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic. [4] The policy allows migrants to be removed to third countries that provide credible diplomatic assurances that they will not be persecuted or tortured. [4] For countries that have not provided such assurances, the policy provides for notice and an assessment of potential persecution or torture if the migrant raises such a concern. [4] The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court last week, arguing that those requirements were interfering with its ability to carry out removals and disrupting sensitive diplomatic negotiations with countries willing to accept deportees. [5] "The order below also undermines our standing abroad," the administration argued in its filing, according to the ruling. [5] "Finding third countries willing and able to accept aliens is a delicate diplomatic endeavor." [5]

Opponents’ Concerns and Reported Outcomes

Opponents say the policy can lead to persecution, torture, prolonged detention, beatings, sexual assault or chain refoulement once deportees are outside U.S. jurisdiction. [3] They alleged that illegal aliens removed without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise country-specific protection claims had faced "prolonged and arbitrary detention, beatings and sexual assault, disappearance, and chain refoulement." [5] Once in these countries – and outside US jurisdiction – deportees have been subject to abuse by local guards, indefinite detention, or quickly re-deported to their home countries. [3] Congress has made it US policy not to deport people to countries where their lives would be in danger or they could be subject to torture. [3] Opponents of the policy, however, have argued that it can also affect migrants who have lived in the United States for years and, in some cases, have protection against deportation to their countries of origin. [4]

Next Steps at the Supreme Court

The justices directed briefing on questions including whether the lower court had jurisdiction and whether the policy violates immigration law or due process. [1] The court directed its clerk to establish a briefing schedule allowing the case to be argued during its December 2026 argument session. [5] Tuesday's order puts the February district court judgment on hold while the Supreme Court considers the case. [5] The stay will remain in effect until the high court sends down its judgment. [5] The Supreme Court is expected to hear full arguments in December before issuing a final ruling on the legal questions surrounding the policy. [4]

Reactions to the Decision

James Percival, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, welcomed the decision. [4] “A bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike,” Percival said in a social media post. [4] However, Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants challenging the policy, criticised the ruling. [4] The court had “allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries,” Realmuto said, arguing that some migrants could face persecution or torture without adequate notice or an opportunity to raise their concerns. [4]

What to watch next: The Supreme Court will hear full arguments in December on questions including whether the lower court had jurisdiction and whether the policy violates immigration law or due process.