The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume rapidly deporting migrants to third countries without providing them an opportunity to contest the removals, a policy that has sparked legal challenges and raised human rights concerns. The unsigned emergency order put on hold a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Boston, who had blocked the practice on grounds that migrants must be given notice and a chance to raise fears of persecution or torture before being sent to countries where they may have no ties.

The court did not disclose a vote count but noted it would expedite full oral arguments on the issue, scheduled for December, with a final decision expected next year. The case centers on the legality and constitutional implications of deportations to so-called third countries—nations other than the migrants’ own—such as Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the Central African Republic. Human rights groups have reported allegations of abusive treatment of deportees in some of these countries, including incidents where individuals were reportedly hooded, bound, and beaten by local authorities.

The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices dissented from the emergency order, signaling disagreement over allowing the rapid expulsions to continue without further examination. They called for a thorough review of whether the lower court possessed the authority to halt the policy, and whether the policy itself violates constitutional protections and international laws prohibiting torture.

The policy, implemented last year, has been a central component of President Donald Trump’s broad immigration enforcement agenda aimed at mass deportation. More than 25,000 migrants have reportedly been deported under this policy to 29 countries, with the majority sent to Mexico. The government’s position, endorsed by Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival, is that the Supreme Court’s ruling represents a victory and allows continued use of rapid removal procedures that reduce what they describe as backlogs and security risks.

Opponents, including immigrant rights advocates, decried the decision as a setback to migrants’ legal protections. Trina A. Realmuto, a lawyer representing immigrants challenging the policy, characterized the ruling as “devastating” but noted that the Supreme Court’s agreement to hear full arguments later leaves open the possibility that the policy could be found unlawful.

The case highlights ongoing tensions between executive authority over immigration enforcement and judicial efforts to uphold procedural safeguards and human rights standards for those facing deportation. With the December arguments approaching, the nation awaits further legal clarity on the scope and limits of the administration’s third-country deportation policy.