Home · Politics · Oct 27 archive
Supreme Court Urged to Uphold Trump-Era Deportation Agreement
· Confirmed
In Short: The Trump administration and Texas urged the Supreme Court to uphold a consent agreement that abolishes a Biden-era regulation allowing immigration judges to suspend deportation proceedings.
The Trump administration and Texas urged the Supreme Court on Thursday to leave in place their consent agreement that abolishes a Biden-era regulation allowing immigration judges to suspend deportation proceedings.
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 although the consent agreement throws out the administrative-closure rule, it 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 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 decision will allow the Trump administration to carry out its aggressive deportation method of quickly removing immigrants to one of the countries — some with human rights concerns — the administration has agreements with to take third-country removals from the United States.
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.' Jamaica's Ministry of National Security and Peace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade released a joint statement clarifying the new program on Tuesday.
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 directly risks violating the international principle of “non-refoulement,” which strictly forbids returning individuals to countries where they face prosecution, torture, or serious harm.
The deportations highlight the precarious reality facing displaced communities across South-east Asia as host nations increasingly tighten immigration enforcement.
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 decision underscores the ongoing legal battles over immigration policies and the Supreme Court's role in upholding or overturning these measures.
The agreement's impact on families and communities already living in fear of immigration raids remains a significant concern.
Background
The Supreme Court will hear cases challenging the Trump administration's immigration policies, including detention and deportation practices.
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.
What's confirmed
- The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted, for now, 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 prevented the deportation from occurring unless adequate time was given for a noncitizen to verify that they would not face harm in the third country.
- The agreement caps the number of migrants arriving to 25 "per fortnight." Jamaica's Ministry of National Security and Peace and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade released a joint statement clarifying the new program on Tuesday.
- The deportations represent the first wave of a broader agreement with Naypyitaw that could see up to 5,000 Myanmar nationals returned.
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.
- 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.
- 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.
- More recently, in an opinion joined by Justice Samuel Alito, Justice Neil Gorsuch defended the major questions doctrine – a canon of interpretation that requires administrative agencies to identify extra clear statutory authority before regulating in economically or politically “major” ways – by quoting then-Professor Barrett for the proposition that “clear-statement rules help courts ‘act as faithful agents of the Constitution.’” As an initial terminological matter, there is not currently a meaningful difference between conceptualizing courts as faithful agents of the People and conceptualizing courts as faithful agents of the People’s Constitution.
- Recognizing the distinction helps explain why the Supreme Court can, and should, exercise the power of judicial review – something which, while an acknowledged part of the Supreme Court’s power for well over two centuries, has recently come under question.
- This third entry focuses on our third branch of government and explains why the Supreme and inferior federal courts are properly conceptualized as faithful agents of We the People – not faithful agents of Congress.
- Cuba will not stay idly as this person eviscerates the principles of the United Nations.… Waltz disagreed, saying that Parrilla just didn’t “like” the points he was making.
- “The need for interim relief is underscored by the collusion that infected this suit from its inception,” the cities and organization wrote.
- "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.
- 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.