Supreme Court Clears Trump to Resume Third-Country Deportations Ahead of December Arguments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 30, 2026, granted the Trump administration's emergency request to stay a lower court order that had blocked the government's practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, often places they have no prior connection to. The stay pauses a February ruling from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, who found the Department of Homeland Security's policy violated due process protections under the Fifth Amendment. The First Circuit Court of Appeals had largely upheld Murphy's ruling on September 18, prompting the administration's rushed appeal to the high court.

The policy allows officers to send migrants whose home countries refuse to accept them to third countries instead, sometimes with only brief notice and little chance to object. More than 25,000 people have been deported to roughly 29 countries since the policy expanded in 2025, with the majority going to Mexico and others sent to South Sudan, Rwanda, Eswatini, Uganda, Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Guyana and the Central African Republic. Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices the tool is necessary to remove "some of the worst criminal aliens" and warned that the lower court order had already forced the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 people with criminal convictions.

The court did not explain its reasoning in the brief unsigned order, as is typical on the emergency docket, but it agreed to hear full oral arguments in December on whether the policy is legal and whether lower courts have jurisdiction to block it nationwide. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented and said they would have kept the lower court's limits in place while the case proceeds. A final ruling is expected sometime after the December arguments.

Arguments for:

  • The administration argues third-country removals are an essential enforcement tool for migrants whose home countries refuse to take them back, including people with serious criminal convictions.

  • Solicitor General John Sauer told the court the lower court order was already disrupting operations, pointing to the cancellation of a flight meant to carry 70 people with criminal records.

  • The ruling keeps deportation flights moving while the court sorts out the underlying legal questions in December, rather than freezing the policy for months during litigation.

Arguments against:

  • Judge Brian Murphy found the policy fails to give migrants meaningful notice or a real chance to raise fears of torture or persecution before being sent to an unfamiliar country.

  • Plaintiffs' attorneys say the practice has already led to people being beaten, sexually assaulted, detained or disappeared after removal, and some have been unlawfully sent back to home countries where the U.S. had granted them protection.

  • Destinations like South Sudan carry active State Department warnings over crime, kidnapping and armed conflict, raising the stakes of removing people there without a hearing.

  • The three dissenting justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, said they would have left the lower court's notice requirements in place while the case is argued.

What's your take?

Should the Supreme Court have let the Trump administration resume third-country deportations while the case is being argued? Yes ↑ No ↓ Other ◇

Sources:

#SupremeCourt #Immigration #Deportation #DueProcess #TrumpAdministration

Now let's hear from you.

  • You get one Take and 3 ratings so use them well.

  • Strong arguments beat loud ones. See Moving The Needle (How to)

  • Don't forget to rate your own Take.

  • Please don't feed the trolls.

About Square One

Image 1