The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to third countries without offering them an opportunity to argue that they could face harm, marking a significant victory for the president’s hardline immigration agenda.
In a brief, unsigned order issued on Monday, the court lifted a lower court injunction that had required the federal government to provide deportees a “meaningful opportunity” to present claims of possible torture or danger in the receiving country. The decision came without an accompanying explanation and was met with a strong dissent from the court’s three liberal justices.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing on behalf of the dissenters, condemned the ruling as “a gross abuse” of judicial power. “Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers,” she wrote, calling the move “incomprehensible” and accusing the Trump administration of openly disregarding multiple court orders.
The challenged policy allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport certain migrants to so-called third countries, even if they are unstable or considered unsafe, rather than returning them to their home countries. The administration argued the measure is necessary to remove individuals convicted of serious crimes, particularly when their countries of origin refuse to accept them.
In its appeal, the Trump administration said due process had already been observed, and described the eight South Sudanese men at the center of the case as convicted of serious offenses in the U.S., including murder, arson, and armed robbery.
A White House spokesperson, Abigail Jackson, welcomed the court’s decision, saying it “reaffirms the president’s authority to remove criminal illegal aliens and Make America Safe Again.” DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin added, “Fire up the deportation planes.”
The case originated from a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups after the administration moved in February to fast-track deportations to third countries. The plaintiffs, representing migrants facing imminent removal, argued that the policy violated constitutional protections requiring notice and a chance to present their case before deportation.
On April 18, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued an injunction, ruling that the policy likely violated constitutional due process. He later found the administration in contempt for attempting to deport a group of migrants to South Sudan, despite ongoing court orders and warnings from the U.S. State Department about security risks in the country.
Although the Supreme Court lifted the broader injunction, Judge Murphy emphasized that his specific order blocking the deportation of the eight South Sudanese men remains in effect.
Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and lead counsel for the plaintiffs, described the Supreme Court’s ruling as “horrifying.”
“It strips away critical due process protections that have been shielding our clients from torture and death,” she said.
The case is one of several immigration-related disputes to reach the Supreme Court since President Trump returned to office in January. In May, the court allowed the administration to terminate certain humanitarian protections, while raising questions about the treatment of migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act — a wartime-era law.
Justice Sotomayor also cited previous allegations of noncompliance, including instances where migrants were deported to El Salvador or held in Guantanamo Bay in defiance of judicial orders. “Each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and the rule of law,” she warned.
The Supreme Court intervened after the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston declined on May 16 to pause Judge Murphy’s injunction.
