Supreme Court Clears Trump to Resume Third-Country Deportations as Justices Take Up Legal Fight

The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own while the justices prepare to decide whether the policy violates federal law and constitutional due process protections.

The unsigned September 29 order puts on hold a federal court judgment that required migrants facing removal to a third country to receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before they are sent there.

The justices also agreed to hear the dispute in December, moving the case from the Court’s emergency docket into a full review of the policy’s legality. Tuesday’s order is not a ruling that the policy is legal. It temporarily blocks the lower court judgment while the case proceeds.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the administration’s request to stay the judgment. The Court gave no explanation for granting the stay.

The dispute, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., arose from DHS guidance governing where immigration officials can send people who already have final removal orders.

Under the guidance, officials can carry out a third-country removal without additional procedures when the receiving government provides assurances against persecution or torture that the State Department considers credible. Otherwise, migrants generally receive notice of the destination and can raise fears about being sent there. The challengers say those procedures fall short of federal protections barring removal when a person faces persecution or torture.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts agreed on February 25, ruling that migrants must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim before removal.

On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld Murphy’s decision on September 18. The appeals court agreed that migrants must have a meaningful opportunity to challenge removal based on the risks they could face in the destination country, while rejecting a separate part of the ruling concerning the order in which the government must pursue potential destinations.

The restrictions took effect September 23. The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene the following day.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court ruling interfered with an important immigration enforcement tool and created logistical and diplomatic problems. According to the administration, the restrictions forced officials to cancel a planned flight carrying about 70 people to three countries.

The administration argues that the lower courts imposed procedures beyond those required by federal law and made third-country removals harder to carry out, particularly when a migrant’s home country refuses to accept the person. It says credible diplomatic assurances can provide sufficient protection without requiring a new individualized proceeding before removal.

The challengers counter that diplomatic assurances cannot account for dangers unique to an individual migrant. Without meaningful notice and a chance to object, they argue, someone could be sent to a country where the person faces persecution or torture before those risks are considered.

More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to at least 29 third countries under the administration’s policy, according to a tally maintained by human rights groups. Most have been sent to Mexico, while others have been removed to countries including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic.

The justices will consider both the legality of the policy and whether the lower court had jurisdiction and authority to grant broad relief against DHS.

The Supreme Court first intervened in the dispute in June 2025, when it stayed Murphy’s preliminary injunctionpreliminary injunctionA preliminary injunction is a temporary court order issued before a case is finally decided that requires a party to take or stop an action while the litigation continues. Federal courts generally consider the likelihood of success, irreparable harm, the balance of equities, and the public interest before granting one.Read more → restricting third-country removals. Since then, Murphy entered a final judgment, and the First Circuit largely upheld it, giving the justices an appellate ruling on the policy to review.

Oral arguments are expected during the Court’s December session. Tuesday’s stay will remain in place until the Supreme Court issues its judgment.