US Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration To Resume Third-Country Deportations

The United States Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture.

The court on Tuesday granted the US Justice Department’s emergency request to suspend a ruling by Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy, who had declared the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country deportation policy unlawful.

The Supreme Court also agreed to hear arguments in the case in December, with a final ruling on the legality of the policy expected later.

The decision allows the Trump administration to continue using third-country deportations as part of its broader immigration crackdown pending the outcome of the case.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the decision, which was issued by the six-member conservative majority.

Murphy’s ruling followed a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants challenging the government’s practice of sending them to third countries without adequate notice and an opportunity to demonstrate the risks they could face.

According to a tally by human rights groups, more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy introduced last year, with the majority sent to Mexico.

The administration has also deported migrants to countries including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic.

The US State Department advises Americans against travelling to South Sudan because of risks including crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s decision, Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the ruling.

“A bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike,” Percival wrote on social media.

However, Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, criticised the decision.

“The court has allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they face persecution or torture. That is a devastating result for people who may be put on a plane before they ever have notice or an opportunity to raise a fear claim,” Realmuto said.

In February, Murphy ruled that the policy violated immigration law procedures and due process protections under the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution.

Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.

The Supreme Court had previously intervened in the case, suspending an earlier order by Murphy that temporarily halted the third-country deportations.

It also later lifted restrictions imposed by the judge to protect a group of migrants from being deported to South Sudan.

The legal battle began in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security expanded efforts to deport migrants who could not be returned to countries named in their deportation orders.

Under the policy, migrants may be swiftly deported to third countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurances that they will not be persecuted or tortured.

For countries that have not provided such assurances, migrants are notified of their destination and US authorities assess the risk of persecution or torture only if the individuals raise such concerns themselves.

In its emergency filing before the Supreme Court, the Justice Department described third-country deportations as “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.”

Critics of the policy, however, argue that it has also affected migrants who had previously received legal protection against deportation to their home countries.

The plaintiffs said some migrants deported to third countries were subsequently transferred back to their countries of origin, despite having US protection against such removal.

They also alleged that some deportees had been beaten, sexually assaulted, detained or had disappeared.

The plaintiffs said the administration was ignoring “the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime US residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there.”

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Murphy’s ruling on September 18.

The case has remained contentious, with Murphy previously finding that the Trump administration had “repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate” his orders.

In 2025, the judge also found that the administration had violated another order requiring additional steps before attempting to deport a group of migrants to South Sudan.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear substantive arguments on the third-country deportation policy in December.