The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting immigrants to third countries without providing advance notice or an opportunity to challenge the removal, temporarily blocking lower court orders requiring such procedural protections. The court denied a federal judge’s injunction that had mandated notice and a meaningful chance for migrants to argue they would face persecution or torture if sent to third countries, while the justices prepare to hear full arguments on the matter in December.
The order, issued by the court’s conservative majority without a detailed explanation, puts the administration’s “third-country deportation” policy back into effect as the legal dispute continues. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the ruling but did not file a written dissenting opinion.
The case involves a policy under the Department of Homeland Security in which migrants who entered the United States illegally can be removed to countries other than their home nations, often without prior notice. This approach sidesteps legal protections that prevent deportation to a home country where an individual faces a credible threat of persecution or torture. The administration has reportedly secured agreements with 31 countries to accept such deportees, some of which have histories of human rights abuses.
Critics of the policy have expressed grave concerns about the treatment of individuals deported under this practice. Lawsuits filed by migrants describe cases of indefinite detention, physical abuse, sexual assault, and inhumane conditions in third countries, including allegations of mistreatment in facilities such as a remote hotel in Equatorial Guinea. The migrants’ attorneys argue that these deportations constitute “chain refoulement,” wherein third countries send migrants onward to their home countries where they may face danger.
The legal challenge accelerated after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Boston issued an order imposing notice and hearing requirements to protect migrants from unlawful removal. Murphy’s ruling found that the administration’s rapid deportations violated the due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and federal immigration laws. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld Murphy’s ruling on Sept. 18 in a unanimous decision, emphasizing the importance of prior notice so individuals can contest removals to potentially unsafe destinations.
Following a subsequent injunction enforcement on Sept. 23, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court’s order disrupted removal operations, led to flight cancellations, and created diplomatic complications. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserted the appeal was necessary to prevent “chaos” and enable the government to continue deportations, including of individuals deemed dangerous.
White House spokesperson Lauren Bis praised the Supreme Court’s latest order, stating it reaffirms the administration’s immigration agenda. Meanwhile, advocates for migrants warned that allowing deportations to resume without notice profoundly jeopardizes vulnerable individuals’ safety and legal rights.
The Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing will address crucial questions about the jurisdiction of lower courts, the scope of procedural protections for migrants, and the legality of the administration’s third-country deportation policy under U.S. law and constitutional due process guarantees.