Supreme Court Lets Trump Resume Third-Country Deportations Pending December Arguments

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed a Massachusetts judge’s order and allowed the Trump administration to keep deporting illegal aliens to countries other than their homelands while the justices take up the full case in December. The unsigned order overrode a First Circuit decision that had largely left U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s restrictions in place. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the government’s request. The six-justice majority did not explain its reasoning.

The case is Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Court last week after the First Circuit’s ruling took effect Sept. 23 and, the government said, created logistical problems, extra cost, diplomatic complications, and an inability to remove dangerous criminals. Attorney General Todd Blanche had called third-country removal “an entirely legal and invaluable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration” and vowed to go to the high court. DHS General Counsel James Percival said Tuesday the policy is back in effect and called it a bad day for criminal illegal aliens and open-borders activists, adding that it is not too late to take $3,000 and a flight home.

Murphy, a Biden appointee in Boston, had required written notice of the destination country and a “meaningful opportunity” to argue fear of persecution or torture before removal to a so-called third country. The First Circuit earlier this month vacated part of his judgment on standing but affirmed the notice-and-hearing requirements. Rights groups say more than 25,000 people have already been sent to about 29 countries under a March 2025 DHS policy, the large majority to Mexico. Destinations have also included South Sudan, Eswatini, and Rwanda. The Migration Policy Institute put 2025 third-country removals at about 15,000. The administration uses the tool when home countries refuse return or when withholding-of-removal or Convention Against Torture relief bars sending someone only to their country of origin. Receiving countries give the United States blanket assurances they will not persecute or torture the deportees.

This is the third time the justices have rejected Murphy’s efforts to halt or condition the removals. Earlier stays covered a preliminary injunction and a separate limit on sending a group of men to South Sudan. Tuesday’s order treats the emergency application as a petition for review and keeps the policy in force until the Court issues a judgment after argument. Possible argument dates fall in the December sitting: Nov. 30 or Dec. 1, 2, 7, 8, or 9. A decision is expected by the end of June 2027. The Court directed both sides to brief whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether it had authority to issue nationwide relief, and whether the policy violates federal immigration law, the Due Process Clause, or regulations implementing the torture convention.

Sauer told the justices the policy is an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens, after home countries refuse them. “While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the Nation does not,” he wrote. Plaintiffs and immigrant-rights groups say the practice denies due process and risks sending people to countries where they have no ties and may face harm. The stay does not decide those questions. It restores the administration’s operational authority until the Court rules on the merits.