The Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Monday, enabling the Trump administration to proceed with the deportation of immigrants to countries where they do not hold citizenship. This decision temporarily blocks a prior ruling from a lower-court judge, who argued that migrants deserve a “meaningful opportunity” to contest their deportation. The court’s order, which faced a strong dissent from three liberal justices, is part of a continuing series of decisions that permit President Donald Trump to implement substantial policy changes while legal challenges are still underway in lower courts.
This ruling was issued under the court’s emergency docket, which allows cases to be decided with abbreviated filings rather than through oral arguments, often without detailed reasoning. The administration has aimed to deport groups of migrants, including some with criminal convictions in the United States, to countries that may be unsafe, such as South Sudan.
A lawsuit was initially filed by four individuals in Boston, representing all migrants at risk of third-country removals. They argued for their right to receive notice and an opportunity to present fear-based claims prior to deportation. However, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled against the administration, temporarily halting such deportations and later stating that an intended deportation flight to South Sudan violated his order. Currently, those migrants are being held at a makeshift detention facility at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where they face health risks and threats from potential rocket attacks.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a nearly 20-page dissent, criticizing the administration for disregarding the lower-court’s ruling and attempting to send migrants to a nation deemed too dangerous by the State Department. The dissent highlighted the potential violence migrants could face in these foreign locales, emphasizing that the court's majority was “rewarding lawlessness” by obstructing an order that the administration has often flouted.
The conservative majority provided a brief, unsigned statement without elaborating on their reasoning for pausing Judge Murphy’s decision. In response, the White House and the Department of Homeland Security celebrated the ruling, sharing messages on social media that included “Fire up the deportation planes” alongside a meme featuring the president.
The third-country removals case is just one among various legal challenges arising from the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration policies. The Supreme Court has previously restrained the administration in other deportation cases, supporting lower courts that criticized Trump officials for their failure to provide immigrants sufficient time or due process to contest removals. Furthermore, the justices allowed Trump to revoke protected status for hundreds of thousands of migrants while litigation regarding these program cancellations remains ongoing.
For instance, the court ordered the administration to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego García, who had been wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite a court ruling that prohibited such action. The government has since returned him to the United States after securing an indictment against him for allegedly transporting undocumented migrants.
In her dissent, Sotomayor indicated that the majority’s stance contradicted earlier court orders stating that migrants cannot be removed without a fair legal process. Legal expert Steve Vladeck criticized the ruling as “disastrous,” noting that it could encourage further violations of lower-court orders by the administration. He pointed out that the current order may allow numerous migrants to be sent to third countries where they face credible risks of mistreatment.
Attorneys representing the migrants voiced their concerns, stating that the court’s decision leaves thousands at risk of deportation and potential mistreatment. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, emphasized that the ruling undermines vital due process protections previously in place, calling for urgency in concluding the ongoing legal challenge against the administration's policy.
Tricia McLaughlin, an assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, stated that the agency can now exercise its lawful authority to remove illegal aliens to countries willing to accept them. Judge Murphy had mandated that the government provide targeted individuals with up to 25 days to legally challenge their deportations and ensure interviews are conducted with their attorneys and interpreters present to assess eligibility for humanitarian protection.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the Supreme Court to overturn Murphy's ruling, citing a crisis of illegal immigration and contending that the lower-court judge had overstepped the executive branch's authority regarding deportations. He claimed that the procedures imposed by the judge were unnecessarily burdensome for the government.
Attorneys for the immigrants countered that Murphy had been careful to avoid overstepping judicial boundaries while ensuring compliance with federal laws against deporting individuals to countries where they could face persecution or torture. They highlighted that many migrants targeted for removal had not committed crimes and had originally entered the U.S. legally.
Judge Murphy expressed frustration with the administration's responses to his orders, accusing Justice Department lawyers of creating chaos as a means to evade compliance. In May, he noted that the administration had violated his order by attempting to deport a group of migrants from various countries after federal authorities determined they had committed serious offenses, and their home countries would not accept them.
The legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's immigration policies continues to evolve, with advocates urging the courts to uphold due process rights for migrants facing deportation while maintaining the integrity of the legal system.
