Supreme Court lets Trump resume deporting migrants to countries not their own

The US Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the chance to show the harms they may face, bolstering a tool his administration has used for rapid expulsions as part of his immigration crackdown.

The court granted the Justice Department's emergency request to put on hold Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy's ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's policy to remove migrants to so-called third countries is unlawful. The court also agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in December, with a formal ruling on the policy to follow.

The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Its three liberal justices dissented from the decision to let the deportations immediately resume pending the final outcome of the litigation.

Murphy's ruling came in a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants seeking to prevent the US government from sending them to third countries without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.

More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy implemented last year, according to a tally by human rights groups, with the vast majority going to Mexico.

The policy is one of a number of measures the administration has taken in its pursuit of Trump's goal of mass deportation. The Republican president has enforced a sweeping crackdown on immigration – among his top priorities – since returning to office last year.

The administration has carried out third-country deportations to politically unstable South Sudan, which the US State Department urges Americans to avoid due to the risks of crime, kidnapping and armed conflict, as well as Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic and other nations.

Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the court's decision.

"A bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike," Percival wrote on social media.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the court has "allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they face persecution or torture. That is a devastating result for people who may be put on a plane before they ever have notice or an opportunity to raise a fear claim."

In February, Murphy ruled that the policy violates immigration law procedures and due process protections under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.

The Supreme Court, which has allowed a number of Trump's hardline immigration policies, previously sided with the administration in the legal challenge, suspending a preliminary order that Murphy issued earlier in the case halting the removals. In another win for the administration, the Supreme Court subsequently lifted limits the judge had imposed to protect a group of men from being sent to South Sudan.

The case began in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security moved to step up deportations of migrants who cannot be returned to any country listed on their deportation orders.

Swiftly removed

The policy provided that migrants could be swiftly removed without notice to third countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurance that they will not persecute or torture the individuals. For countries that have not provided such assurance, deportees would be notified of their destination and US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture only if the individual raises such fear on their own.

In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said third-country deportations are "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens."

But both Murphy and critics of the administration said the policy is also targeting migrants who had been granted legal protection from being sent back to their home countries.

The policy has resulted in deportees being unlawfully transferred by third countries back to their home countries from which the US had already granted them protection, while others have been beaten, sexually assaulted, detained or have disappeared, the plaintiffs said in a court filing.

The administration is ignoring "the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime US residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there," the plaintiffs said.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of the judge's ruling on 18 September.

The case has been hotly contested since it began, and included findings by Murphy that the administration "repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate" his orders. Murphy in 2025 found that the administration had violated another order he issued requiring additional steps before attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan.