WASHINGTON, — A Supreme Court order remains a major legal tool for the Trump administration as it seeks to deport some immigrants with final removal orders to countries other than their nations of origin, while a renewed legal battle over the administration’s procedures has returned to the high court.
The Supreme Court intervened in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. on June 23, 2025, granting the administration’s request to stay a federal judge’s preliminary injunction governing so-called third-country removals.
The decision did not constitute a final Supreme Court ruling on the legality of the administration’s entire deportation policy. Instead, it temporarily prevented enforcement of the lower court’s injunction while litigation continued through the federal courts.
The underlying dispute involves immigrants who already have final orders of removal but whom the government seeks to send to a country other than the one specifically identified in their removal orders.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts had required the Department of Homeland Security to provide additional notice and an opportunity for affected immigrants to raise claims that they could face persecution or torture in the proposed destination country.
The Supreme Court stayed that preliminary injunction.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the June 2025 order.
The administration subsequently issued guidance to Immigration and Customs Enforcement implementing the Supreme Court order.
Under ICE guidance dated July 9, 2025, an immigrant may be removed to a third country without additional procedures when the United States has received diplomatic assurances that the person will not be persecuted or tortured there and the State Department considers those assurances credible.
In other circumstances, ICE guidance calls for providing notice identifying the intended destination and generally waiting at least 24 hours before removal. The guidance allows a shorter period of at least six hours in certain exigent circumstances, provided the person has a reasonable opportunity to contact an attorney.
The case, however, is not over.
The Department of Homeland Security returned to the Supreme Court on Sept. 24, 2026, filing a new application for a stay in the continuing D.V.D. litigation.
Justice Jackson requested a response from the challengers by Sept. 28. The challengers submitted their response Monday, along with amicus briefs from outside organizations. As of the Supreme Court docket available Sept. 29, no ruling on that latest application was listed.
That makes the wording circulating on social media important.
Claims that the Supreme Court has just issued a new ruling “siding with Trump” and authorizing third-country deportations can give the impression that the court handed down a new final decision this week. The major Supreme Court order allowing the administration to proceed while litigation continued was issued in June 2025.
The legal question is also narrower than whether the federal government can deport people who are unlawfully present in the United States generally.
The litigation focuses specifically on the procedures the government must follow when attempting to remove people with final removal orders to countries other than those designated in their original removal proceedings.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue third-country removals are necessary when a person’s country of origin will not accept them or when another country agrees to receive them.
Attorneys challenging the policy argue immigrants must have a meaningful opportunity to raise claims under federal law and the Convention Against Torture before being sent to countries where they could face persecution or torture.
For now, the Supreme Court’s June 2025 intervention remains an important part of the administration’s legal authority for carrying out third-country removals.
But the renewed case now before the justices means the fight over exactly what procedures DHS must provide is continuing — and another Supreme Court decision could come next.
Original article
Comments