Nicolai Haugsted
Trump gets another Supreme Court victory as his controversial deportation policy is allowed to continue.
Donald Trump has spent his second term searching for more places to send people the United States wants to deport.
Finding those destinations has sometimes meant looking far beyond a migrant’s country of origin.
South Sudan, Rwanda and Eswatini are among the nations that have received deportees with few or no previous connections to them under the administration’s expanding “third-country” strategy.
Now the Supreme Court has cleared the runway again, according to NBC News.
Justices on Tuesday temporarily lifted restrictions on the Trump administration’s ability to deport certain migrants to third countries without first providing the process lower courts said was necessary for them to raise fears of persecution or torture.
The 6-3 order gives Trump an immediate immigration victory, but it does not settle whether his policy is legal.
Supreme Court justices will hear the broader case in December before issuing a final ruling.
Trump gets the policy back for now
Tuesday’s unsigned order puts a February ruling from Massachusetts-based US District Judge Brian Murphy on hold.
Murphy concluded that the government’s procedures violated federal immigration law and due-process protections because migrants facing removal to unfamiliar countries were not given sufficient notice and a meaningful opportunity to explain why they feared being sent there.
The First US Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with Murphy earlier this month, holding that the government’s guidance conflicted with legal protections governing claims involving persecution and torture.
Trump’s administration then went straight back to the Supreme Court.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have rejected the government’s emergency request. The remaining six justices allowed the lower-court judgment to be suspended while the case proceeds.
Tuesday’s result marks the second time the Supreme Court has intervened in the dispute to let the administration move forward.
DHS was not exactly subtle about celebrating
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the ruling with a message aimed squarely at people facing deportation.
“A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike,” Percival said.
“It’s not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home.”
DHS has offered financial incentives for some undocumented immigrants who voluntarily leave the United States, while simultaneously expanding arrangements with foreign governments willing to accept deportees who are not their citizens.
Thousands of people have already been removed through third-country arrangements since Trump’s return to office.
Around 15,000 people were deported to third countries during 2025, according to figures cited by the Migration Policy Institute, with Mexico receiving the largest share.
The argument is really about what happens before takeoff
Plaintiffs are not arguing that every third-country deportation must be prohibited.
Their case focuses instead on what opportunity a person should receive before being placed on a flight.
Four immigrants originally challenged the administration’s procedures, arguing that people must have a “meaningful opportunity” to explain why removal to a particular country could expose them to persecution or torture.
Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, who represents the plaintiffs, warned that Tuesday’s decision changes the immediate stakes dramatically.
The ruling “means that people facing removal to third countries are once again at immediate risk of being sent to places where they have no meaningful opportunity to seek protection,” Realmuto said.
“That is an enormous consequence for people whose lives and safety are on the line.”
Federal law prohibits removing a person to a country where the government determines that person’s life or freedom would probably be threatened on specified protected grounds. International and domestic rules also provide protection against removal to places where someone is likely to face torture.
The First Circuit concluded that the administration’s process did not adequately comply with those protections.
Trump says assurances from foreign governments are enough
The administration sees the problem very differently.
Officials argue that individualized proceedings are unnecessary in some circumstances when the receiving government has provided diplomatic assurances that deportees will not be persecuted or tortured.
DHS has also said it will not immediately remove someone without such assurances where they are required under its guidance.
Plaintiffs argue that promises between governments cannot replace a person’s opportunity to explain why those assurances may not protect them.
Court filings from the challengers have alleged that some people previously sent to third countries suffered indefinite detention, physical abuse or sexual abuse after arriving.
Those allegations form part of the litigation and are disputed in the broader fight over the policy.
Seventy deportees were apparently ready to fly
The administration told the Supreme Court that renewed restrictions from the lower courts were creating immediate practical headaches.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that suspending third-country removals had “created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations.”
According to Sauer, the restrictions also produced “added expense, potential diplomatic issues, and the inability to remove dangerous criminals.”
One planned flight carrying 70 people with criminal convictions to three countries had to be canceled after the lower-court requirements took effect, Sauer told the justices.
Lawyers challenging the policy countered that the lower courts had not prohibited third-country deportations altogether.
Migrants simply had to receive an opportunity to raise qualifying safety objections before removal, they argued.
One Cuban man’s case shows why the details matter
Lead plaintiff D.V.D. is identified only by his initials in court records.
He is Cuban and, according to his lawyers, suffers from severe mental illness.
His attorneys say he fears being removed to another country where appropriate psychiatric treatment may not be available.
The case has since grown well beyond the circumstances of one man.
It now asks the Supreme Court to decide major questions about how much process the government must provide before sending people with final removal orders somewhere other than the country originally contemplated in their immigration proceedings.
The justices have specifically agreed to consider whether the administration’s policy violates federal immigration law, the Constitution’s Due Process Clause and legal protections involving torture.
