Home · Politics · Oct 5 archive
Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Trump's Third-Country Deportation Policy
Confirmed
In Short: The Supreme Court will hear arguments in December regarding the Trump administration's policy of deporting immigrants to third countries.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume its policy of sending some deportees to countries where they have no ties, while agreeing to hold arguments over the controversial practice in December.
In a brief, unsigned order, the justices cleared the way for the government to continue such “third-country removals” until they can consider and rule on the merits of the dispute.
In March, four immigrants with removal orders went to federal court in Massachusetts, where they contended that they feared being deported to a country that was not identified in their orders.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled in February that the policy violated due process protections under the Fifth Amendment because migrants were not given notice or a real chance to raise fears of torture.
The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld Murphy’s ruling on Sept. 18, and five days later, it dissolved an earlier order that had put Murphy’s ruling on hold.
The Trump administration argued that a set of agreements with destination countries, which include blanket assurances that immigrants will not be tortured, should be enough for the courts.
John Sauer, the Solicitor General, told the justices the policy was an essential tool for removing some of the worst criminal aliens, and that the lower-court block had forced DHS to scrap a flight carrying 70 deportees to three countries.
The policy has been used to deport thousands of immigrants to countries such as El Salvador, Libya, and South Sudan.
The court’s three Democratic appointees – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request.
The lower courts said migrants are entitled to notice and the opportunity to challenge their removals before immigration officers attempt to send them to countries that are not their own.
The Supreme Court’s decision means that people facing removal to third countries are once again at immediate risk of being sent to places where they have no meaningful opportunity to seek protection.
The case will likely be decided by the summer of 2027.
What this adds
The Supreme Court's decision to allow the policy to continue temporarily highlights the ongoing tension between executive authority and judicial oversight in immigration enforcement.
The case will be the third time the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a ruling against it by a federal judge in Massachusetts.
Background
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a case involving St. John Church's fight to build a prayer grotto on its property.
The Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to the Trump administration's policy of mandatory detention for illegal immigrants.
What's confirmed
- On Sept. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit largely upheld Murphy’s ruling, and five days later, it dissolved a March 16, 2026, order that put Murphy’s ruling on hold while the government appealed.
- 9 The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on Dec.
- The court’s three Democratic appointees – Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – indicated that they would have denied the Trump administration’s request (and, as a result, kept the third-country removals on hold).
- "A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike. It's not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home."
What's still developing
- In the wake of that order, DHS issued internal guidance that directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to determine whether undocumented immigrants who had received deportation orders but had not yet been removed because of the possibility that they would be tortured if they were returned to their home countries could instead be sent somewhere else.
- "In our second Supreme Court victory in less than a week, DHS's third country removal policy is back in effect," he wrote on X.
- In Liberia, deported men and women from Brazil, Colombia, Guatemala, Honduras and Venezuela told CBS News they only learned they were getting deported to Africa hours before the deportation plane took off — or in the middle of the flight.
- It asked lawyers for the Justice Department and migrants challenging the third-country-removal policy to be prepared to address several questions, including whether it violates federal law, the Constitution's Due Process Clause or regulations.
- The court also said it would take up the case for full oral argument in December.
- “Now for the second time, SCOTUS just granted our stay in conducting all third-country removals of illegal aliens,” Blanche wrote.
- The court gave no reasoning, but it agreed to hear full arguments on the policy in December.
- The court issued a one-page order without a vote count, permitting the administration to resume the practice, the New York Times reported.
- The Department of Justice filed an emergency request for a stay with the court last week, following a defeat at the appellate level, which saw a lesser court block the policy.
- Attorney General Todd Blanche had vowed to take the case to the Supreme Court, asserting that the policy was "an entirely legal and invaluable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration." Under the Trump administration, immigration officials have pursued a policy of deporting illegal aliens whose home countries will not accept them to third countries that will.
- Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Yoo analyzes the constitutional challenges surrounding birthright citizenship and executive authority under the 14th Amendment on ‘America’s Newsroom.’ The Supreme Court begins its new term Monday, with renewed public and political concern over their recent rulings, the justices' personal safety and even their future makeup.
- Those on the right have demanded impeaching federal judges who block White House policies, while those on the left have renewed calls for drastic changes to the court's structure.