The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday temporarily allowed the Trump administration to continue its policy of deporting certain migrants to countries other than their own while the Court considers the legality of the policy. This decision lifts a lower court’s requirement that migrants be given an opportunity to object before being sent to third countries with which they have no ties.

The ruling, issued without a detailed explanation, came over the objections of the Court’s three liberal justices, who did not file a dissenting opinion. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear full arguments on the issue in December, during the term beginning October 5.

The policy in question, implemented early in Trump’s presidency, authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to deport migrants to third countries—often in Latin America and Africa—rather than their home nations. According to court records, more than 25,000 individuals have been deported under this program since February 2025.

The administration contends that this approach is essential for removing migrants who are difficult to deport, including individuals with criminal convictions for serious offenses such as rape and murder. Many of these migrants have final removal orders but cannot be returned to their home countries due to risk of persecution or because those countries refuse to accept them. Administration officials argue that the policy helps address logistical challenges, reduce costs, and avoid diplomatic complications associated with removals. Attorney General Todd Blanche described the Supreme Court’s temporary approval as a lawful and critical enforcement tool.

Opponents of the policy, including advocacy groups that brought legal challenges against it, argue that deporting individuals to countries where they have no connection can lead to severe harm, particularly when migrants are denied a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of torture or persecution before being sent abroad. A Boston-based appeals court had found that the policy violated migrants’ due process rights by failing to provide sufficient notice and an adequate chance to present protection claims. This finding led to a lower court injunction blocking the policy, which the Supreme Court’s latest decision temporarily lifted.

Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, expressed concern over the Court’s ruling. She stated that allowing the administration to send people to third countries without notice or an opportunity to seek protections could have devastating consequences for many immigrants, including those who are not criminals.

Last week, the administration reported that the lower court injunction had forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 migrants to three countries. The Supreme Court’s temporary order enables the resumption of such removals while it considers the case’s merits.

The dispute reflects broader tensions over immigration enforcement policies and migrants’ legal rights, with the Supreme Court’s forthcoming December hearings poised to provide a more definitive ruling on the contentious third-country deportation program.