Home · Politics · Oct 24 archive
Supreme Court Temporarily Upholds Trump-Era Deportation Agreement
· Confirmed
In Short: The Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to continue rapid third-country deportation of immigrants, while also temporarily upholding a Trump-era agreement.
The Trump administration and Texas urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to uphold a consent agreement that abolishes a Biden-era regulation allowing immigration judges to suspend deportation proceedings.
In a separate case, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to continue rapid third-country deportation of immigrants to countries not their own.
John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the challengers' request to pause a federal district court’s ruling was an attempt to leverage a dispute over joining the case into a broader attack on the merits of the court’s approval of the agreement.
Sauer noted that the consent agreement does not require cases that have already been administratively closed to be returned to an immigration judge’s calendar.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s request to continue rapid third-country deportation of immigrants to countries not their own.
The lower court’s order did not bar third-country removals but required adequate time for noncitizens to verify they would not face harm in the destination country.
Jamaica began receiving third-country deportations from the U.S. this week, with the first flight of migrants arriving on Tuesday.
The agreement caps the number of migrants arriving to 25 per fortnight, according to Jamaica's Ministry of National Security and Peace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade.
The deportations represent the first wave of a broader agreement with Naypyitaw that could see up to 5,000 Myanmar nationals returned.
Human rights advocates noted that forcing refugees back into active conflict zones risks violating the international principle of non-refoulement, which forbids returning individuals to countries where they face prosecution, torture, or serious harm.
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration in September to continue its deportations while the question is being litigated.
Texas went to federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, in June, arguing that the EOIR does not have the power to adopt the administrative-closure rule.
What this adds
The Supreme Court's actions temporarily uphold both the Trump-era deportation agreement and the rapid third-country deportation policy, despite ongoing legal challenges.
The decision highlights the ongoing legal battles over immigration policies and the complex humanitarian concerns surrounding deportation practices.
Background
The Supreme Court has temporarily halted a lower court injunction to allow President Trump's administration to continue construction on the White House ballroom, according to new reports.
The Trump administration has also asked the Supreme Court to allow construction of a border wall and roads in Texas' Big Bend region.
What's confirmed
- The Trump administration and Texas urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to uphold a consent agreement that abolishes a Biden-era regulation allowing immigration judges to suspend deportation proceedings.
- In a separate case, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration's request to continue rapid third-country deportation of immigrants to countries not their own.
- John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that the challengers' request to pause a federal district court’s ruling was an attempt to leverage a dispute over joining the case into a broader attack on the merits of the court’s approval of the agreement.
- Sauer noted that the consent agreement does not require cases that have already been administratively closed to be returned to an immigration judge’s calendar.
- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s request to continue rapid third-country deportation of immigrants to countries not their own.
- The lower court’s order did not bar third-country removals but required adequate time for noncitizens to verify they would not face harm in the destination country.
- Jamaica began receiving third-country deportations from the U.S. this week, with the first flight of migrants arriving on Tuesday.
- The agreement caps the number of migrants arriving to 25 per fortnight, according to Jamaica's Ministry of National Security and Peace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade.
- The deportations represent the first wave of a broader agreement with Naypyitaw that could see up to 5,000 Myanmar nationals returned.
- Human rights advocates noted that forcing refugees back into active conflict zones risks violating the international principle of non-refoulement, which forbids returning individuals to countries where they face prosecution, torture, or serious harm.
- The Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration in September to continue its deportations while the question is being litigated.
- Texas went to federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, in June, arguing that the EOIR does not have the power to adopt the administrative-closure rule.
What's still developing
- A district court and appeals court found that immigrants must have an opportunity to challenge their removal to a country where they do not have citizenship if they fear for their safety or if they might be returned to their home country where they could experience harm.</ This report was first published by the Arizona Mirror.
- The high court will hear oral arguments in December, and directed the parties to answer several questions including if the district court has jurisdiction over the issue, if the lower court can deliver classwide relief and whether the Trump administration’s rapid third-country removal policy is lawful.
- "The government reiterates that this is a transit arrangement intended to facilitate the return of Third Country Nationals to their country of origin or other receiving countries, with the support of the IOM (International Organization for Migration)," the statement read.
- "No third-country national with criminal antecedents will be permitted to transit through Jamaica."
- Lower courts have not categorically prohibited those removals but have required procedures intended to give aliens an opportunity to raise claims that they could face persecution or torture in the destination country.
- "The arrangement will not be funded by the Government of Jamaica," it continued.
- The decision gives the administration the immediate relief it sought as it presses ahead with third-country removals, even as the Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the policy remains.
- For him, the imminent departures have cast a deep shadow over families already living in perpetual fear of immigration raids. “What we can do is very limited,” Bawi told The Straits Times.
- “We have made our concerns and demands clear, but the final decision and authority are beyond our capacity as a refugee community.” The planned returns mark a critical test for Malaysia’s handling of vulnerable populations as Kuala Lumpur balances domestic security and public unease against mounting international criticism.
- On social media platforms, derogatory terms, including a slur that compares the community to large municipal waste bins, are frequently used to dehumanise the population. Some refugees have been physically assaulted by locals who were influenced by the disinformation about Rohingya, Rahman noted, while others are now too terrified to step outside even to buy basic food supplies. “If this continues, it will lead to a humanitarian crisis and starvation,” Rahman said. Rahman acknowledged that some individuals may break local laws while attempting to survive, but urged the authorities against collective punishment. The human crisis unfolds against a massive scale of displacement.
- With hundreds of thousands of refugees still living in legal limbo, the deportations highlight the precarious reality facing displaced communities across South-east Asia as host nations increasingly tighten immigration enforcement.
- “They are afraid to go outside, but they also cannot afford to stay home,” Bawi said.