The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win to the Trump administration on Monday, granting approval for officials to resume deporting migrants to third countries without first allowing them to present claims that they might face danger or torture—broadening the government’s authority on deportations.
In an unsigned emergency order, the Court lifted a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily paused the policy. This move enables immigration authorities to speed up the removal of migrants to nations other than their own, even when those countries are considered unstable or high-risk.
The decision sparked strong opposition from the Court’s three liberal justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, denounced the ruling, calling it a “gross abuse” of the Court’s power. Sotomayor criticized the majority for enabling policies that may expose migrants to serious harm, stating that the Court seems more concerned about limiting judicial power than preventing potential violence.
The case originated from a lawsuit filed by immigration advocates after the Department of Homeland Security ramped up third-country deportations earlier this year. Migrants involved in the suit argued they had not been given proper notice or an opportunity to express fear-based concerns—protections required under the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantees.
In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued a preliminary injunction mandating that the government provide migrants with a fair opportunity to challenge deportations to third countries. One instance involved halting the removal of eight men to South Sudan, a country with ongoing instability and security threats. These individuals were being held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti.
Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Judge Murphy emphasized that his specific order blocking the deportation of those eight men to South Sudan still stands.
Immigration rights groups condemned the Supreme Court’s decision. Trina Realmuto, head of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, described the outcome as “horrifying,” warning that it removes critical safeguards that have protected individuals from being sent to places where they may face torture or death.
The Trump administration defended the third-country removal policy, arguing that it is essential for deporting individuals who have committed serious crimes—especially when their home nations refuse to accept them back. Officials said the men facing deportation to South Sudan had been convicted of crimes such as murder, arson, and armed robbery.
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson praised the Court’s action, saying it reaffirms the president’s authority to deport dangerous individuals. “The Supreme Court’s stay… empowers us to Make America Safe Again,” she said. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin added, “Fire up the deportation planes.”
This case is just one of many immigration battles to reach the Supreme Court since Trump returned to office in January. In a separate ruling earlier this year, the Court allowed the administration to end certain humanitarian protections for migrants, while raising concerns about how other deportations—particularly those based on the Alien Enemies Act—are handled under due process laws.
Justice Sotomayor voiced alarm over what she sees as the administration’s repeated disregard for court orders. She cited instances where migrants were transferred to Guantanamo Bay and later to El Salvador, despite explicit judicial orders to halt those removals. “Each time this Court rewards noncompliance,” Sotomayor warned, “it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
In addition, reports indicate the administration may be considering sending migrants to Libya—another country known for harsh treatment of detainees and ongoing instability—despite past U.S. criticism of its practices.
Although the Supreme Court did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision, the order gives the administration greater power to push forward its aggressive immigration agenda. The broader legal debate over the constitutionality of third-country deportations is still making its way through lower courts.
