The U.S. Supreme Court has granted a significant win to the Trump administration, allowing it to resume a controversial policy of deporting migrants to countries other than their homeland, bypassing a lower court’s safeguard requiring prior notice and an opportunity to raise fears.
In a 6-3 decision, the justices lifted a nationwide injunction issued by Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy. Judge Murphy had ordered the government to provide migrants facing deportation to a “third country” with written notice of the destination and a “meaningful opportunity” to inform officials about potential dangers, such as fears of persecution, torture, or death, before removal. He had clarified this process should typically include at least 10 days for migrants to present fear-based claims.
The Supreme Court’s decision, an emergency intervention while the broader legal challenge proceeds, temporarily removes this requirement. This enables the administration to accelerate its plans for swift deportations, a move the Department of Homeland Security hailed as a “victory for the safety and security of the American people,” adding the contentious phrase, “Fire up the deportation planes.”
The Case That Reached the High Court
This specific legal battle stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a group of migrants challenging the third-country deportation policy. The case highlighted the attempted removal in May of eight migrants who had been convicted of serious crimes in the United States, including offenses the administration characterized as murder, arson, and armed robbery. These individuals, originally from Myanmar, South Sudan, Cuba, Mexico, Laos, and Vietnam, were placed on a plane bound for South Sudan.
South Sudan is a nation the U.S. State Department warns against traveling to due to severe risks of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict. Judge Murphy found that attempting this deportation without the required notice and opportunity violated his earlier order. He halted the flight and ordered the migrants to remain in U.S. custody, directing that they receive “reasonable fear” interviews. Affidavit details later revealed the men were held in challenging conditions, including potential rocket attack risks, at a U.S. military base in Djibouti while awaiting these interviews.
Strong Dissents and Administration Arguments
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – issued a sharp dissent against the majority’s ruling. Justice Sotomayor criticized the decision as a “gross abuse” and “inexcusable,” arguing that the government’s conduct had been “flagrantly unlawful.” She contended that the Court was “rewarding lawlessness” and undermining fundamental due process principles, suggesting the majority found the prospect of “thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable” than the remote possibility a lower court might have slightly overstepped.
The Trump administration, led by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer in arguments to the Supreme Court, framed Judge Murphy’s order as obstructing the removal of “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens.” They argued the ruling “wrecked havoc” on the third-country removal process, usurped executive authority, and created a “diplomatic and logistical morass,” asserting that their policy already complied with due process or that individuals in the country illegally were not fully entitled to such rights. Migrant advocates countered that Judge Murphy’s order simply required the administration to comply with existing federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution itself.
Broader Context of the Policy
Deporting migrants to third countries willing to accept them has been a component of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement strategy and plans for mass deportations. The administration has reportedly explored arrangements with various nations, including Costa Rica, Panama, Rwanda, and El Salvador, to accept non-citizens removed from the U.S.
This Supreme Court ruling is one of numerous legal challenges to the administration’s immigration policies. Lower courts have frequently ruled against the administration, citing violations of migrants’ due process rights by failing to provide adequate notice or opportunities to challenge removal. While the Supreme Court has sometimes echoed these concerns, its decision here temporarily sides with the administration, allowing third-country deportations to resume without the specific procedural safeguards previously mandated by the lower court, while the underlying legal battle continues through the courts.
