Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to move forward with a controversial deportation policy that enables the government to remove migrants to third countries where they have no prior connection, even when they fear torture or death.
In a brief, unsigned order, the conservative-majority court put on hold a lower court ruling that required the federal government to give immigrants a meaningful opportunity to challenge such deportations. The move immediately revived the administration’s ability to deport individuals to partner countries—including unstable destinations like South Sudan—as part of agreements negotiated by U.S. officials.
The ruling did not include a written opinion or explanation of the court’s rationale, but it drew a sharp dissent from the court’s three liberal justices.
“Thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales,” wrote Justice Sonia Sotomayor in a scathing dissent. “This Court rewards lawlessness by allowing the government to violate the due process rights of the vulnerable.”
Deportations to Dangerous Countries Resume
The ruling is expected to accelerate deportations to countries such as South Sudan and Djibouti, which have accepted deportees under Trump-era “safe third country” deals. These agreements—often involving countries with high rates of violence and political instability—have been widely criticized by human rights groups.
Affected migrants are not contesting their deportation orders in general, but rather are asking for the opportunity to explain why deportation to specific third countries would expose them to persecution or torture.
In one high-profile instance, a gay man from Guatemala, identified only as O.C.G., was sent to Mexico, where he was allegedly kidnapped and raped, before being forcibly transferred to Guatemala. The Trump administration returned him to the U.S. on June 4, after he spent months in hiding.
Legal and Political Fallout
The challenge was initially brought by a coalition of legal aid groups, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which slammed Monday’s ruling.
“The ramifications… will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, the alliance’s executive director. “It strips away critical due process protections that have been shielding migrants from torture and death.”
Massachusetts District Judge Brian Murphy, who issued the now-paused injunction, had ruled that the government must provide advance notice and a minimum of 10 days for detainees to challenge being sent to third countries.
But the Trump administration pushed back, calling the judge’s orders “onerous” and a threat to presidential authority over foreign policy.
“Fire up the deportation planes,” said Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security. “DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.”
Foreign Policy Implications
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that removing immigrants with criminal convictions often requires “sensitive diplomacy,” particularly when home countries refuse to accept them. He said Murphy’s ruling made that process more difficult.
“We’re talking about deporting some of the worst of the worst,” Sauer wrote in a filing.
But the plaintiffs’ attorneys countered that the ruling only demanded “a basic measure of fairness” for people facing life-threatening consequences in foreign countries.
The high court’s order revives a Trump-era deportation policy that had been largely dormant during the Biden administration. That policy had faced ongoing legal battles over whether it violated the Constitution’s due process protections and U.S. obligations under international human rights law.
Next Steps and Uncertainty
While the Trump administration has scored a legal victory, litigation over the policy will continue in lower courts. Meanwhile, advocates are bracing for increased deportations and expanded use of third-country removal agreements.
The ruling may also intensify pressure on Congress to clarify the limits of executive immigration authority—especially as Trump, running for reelection, doubles down on hardline immigration stances.
Justice Sotomayor closed her dissent with a pointed warning:
“This Court has allowed executive overreach to erode basic rights once again. History will not forget.”
