The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to resume deporting migrants to third countries without prior notice — a significant short-term victory in its aggressive immigration enforcement efforts.
In a 6-3 ruling, the Court granted the administration’s request to stay a lower court injunction that had blocked such deportations. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
“Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent. “I cannot join so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion.”
Background
At the heart of the case is a challenge brought by a group of migrants facing deportation to countries that were not explicitly named in their removal orders — a practice known as third-country deportation.
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued an order requiring the Trump administration to keep these migrants in U.S. custody until they were given a “reasonable fear interview.” This process allows migrants to explain if they fear persecution or torture in the country to which they’re being deported. His order didn’t stop deportations entirely but required the administration to follow due process.
The case involved deportations to countries such as South Sudan, El Salvador, Guatemala, Costa Rica, and others. Migrants included individuals detained at a military base in Djibouti while awaiting interviews.
Government Argument
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, arguing for the administration, claimed Judge Murphy’s injunction was preventing the removal of “some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens.” He said the administration had acted lawfully and that these removals were essential to national security and immigration enforcement.
Sauer noted that Judge Murphy’s order forced the U.S. to house deportable individuals in foreign facilities and delayed enforcement unnecessarily.
Broader Context
The ruling marks another moment in the legal tug-of-war over President Trump’s hardline immigration policies in his second term. Lower courts have frequently ruled against the administration, finding that migrants were being denied basic due process rights — particularly in last-minute removals without notice.
Trump administration officials have accused what they call “activist judges” of interfering with executive immigration authority. They argue that the Constitution does not guarantee full due process to undocumented immigrants facing deportation, especially in national security or expedited removal cases.
What’s Next
The Supreme Court’s decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with third-country deportations while the broader legal case continues. Legal experts expect further litigation as more migrants and advocacy groups challenge the constitutionality of the administration’s approach.
Meanwhile, the administration is pressing forward with deportations to countries including South Sudan, despite ongoing conflict and human rights concerns. Lawyers for affected migrants say some removals violate both international protections and court orders.
The ruling underscores the growing legal and political battles over immigration in Trump’s second term — and the Supreme Court’s increasingly central role in shaping their outcomes.
