The Supreme Court voted 6-3 Tuesday to temporarily clear the way for the Trump administration to resume deporting certain migrants to countries other than their own while the justices prepare to hear a full challenge to the policy in December.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume deporting certain migrants to countries with which they may have no prior connection, temporarily blocking a lower-court ruling that required additional notice and an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before removal.
The justices granted the administration’s emergency request in an unsigned order, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson saying they would have denied the request. The court’s six-member conservative majority allowed the policy to operate while the litigation continues.
The court also agreed to hear arguments in December and will issue a later ruling addressing the legality of the administration’s third-country removal procedures.
The decision marks the second time the Supreme Court has intervened to remove a lower-court obstacle to the Trump administration’s use of third-country deportations.
As NBC News reported, the administration has sought to deport people with final removal orders to countries other than their own when removal to their home country is unavailable or impractical.
The dispute centers not simply on whether the federal government may use third countries for deportations, but on what procedures it must provide before doing so.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts previously ruled that the Department of Homeland Security’s process was unlawful because migrants facing third-country removal were not guaranteed meaningful notice and an adequate opportunity to raise country-specific claims that they could face persecution or torture.
Murphy, who was appointed to the federal bench by former President Joe Biden, issued a February 2026 judgment declaring that affected migrants must receive effective notice of the country to which DHS intends to send them and a meaningful opportunity to object based on a reasonable fear of persecution or torture.
His order also set aside DHS guidance governing the removals.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld Murphy’s ruling on Sept. 18, while rejecting part of his decision involving the order in which DHS must consider potential countries of removal.
The appeals court left intact the requirements concerning notice and an opportunity to make fear-based claims.
The Justice Department then returned to the Supreme Court, filing an emergency application Sept. 24 seeking to stay the lower-court judgment.
Administration attorneys argued that the restrictions interfered with an important immigration-enforcement tool and improperly allowed a district court to supervise DHS decisions concerning third-country removals nationwide.
The administration has maintained that the policy is particularly important when a migrant’s home country refuses repatriation or when other obstacles make direct removal difficult.
Lawyers challenging the policy argued that migrants could be sent to countries where they face torture, persecution or other serious dangers without receiving enough advance notice to raise those concerns before removal.
Tuesday’s Supreme Court order allows the administration’s policy to operate while the justices address those competing legal arguments.
The case concerns noncitizens with final removal orders who face deportation to countries that were neither identified in their removal orders nor previously designated as potential destinations during their immigration proceedings.
Under the administration’s third-country policy, DHS can pursue removal to another country when deportation to the individual’s home country cannot readily be carried out.
The government has said diplomatic assurances can sometimes be obtained from receiving countries concerning treatment of the deportees.
The plaintiffs contend those assurances do not eliminate the need to give each affected person a meaningful opportunity to raise an individualized fear claim before being placed on a plane.
The Supreme Court previously intervened in the same broader litigation in June 2025, staying an earlier injunction that had restricted the administration’s third-country removals.
The lower courts later considered additional challenges to updated DHS guidance, leading to the February 2026 ruling now before the justices.
Tuesday’s order does not constitute a final ruling that the administration’s policy is lawful.
Instead, it stays the lower-court restrictions while the Supreme Court conducts full review.
The justices directed the parties to address several questions during the upcoming proceedings, including whether the district court had jurisdiction over the migrants’ claims, whether it had authority to grant classwide relief and whether the administration’s third-country removal guidance violates federal immigration law, constitutional due-process protections or federal obligations concerning torture and persecution.
The court directed its clerk to establish a briefing schedule that will allow oral arguments during the December 2026 session.
Until the Supreme Court issues its judgment, Tuesday’s stay permits DHS to resume operating under the challenged policy.
The administration has already used third-country arrangements extensively. More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy since it was implemented, according to figures cited in reporting on the litigation, with Mexico receiving the largest number.
The Trump administration argues that such agreements provide a necessary alternative for removing people who already have final deportation orders but cannot readily be sent to their countries of nationality.
Opponents contend that immigration enforcement does not eliminate federal protections against sending people to places where they could face persecution or torture.
Those competing positions will now receive full consideration by the Supreme Court.
For the immediate future, however, the administration has prevailed on the procedural question that brought the case back to the high court: whether the lower-court restrictions should remain in force while the litigation continues.
By a 6-3 vote, the justices said they should not.
That decision allows Trump’s third-country deportation policy to proceed while setting up a potentially consequential December argument over how much process the government must provide before sending a person with a final removal order to a nation that is not his or her own.
Original article
Comments