The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, pausing a lower-court ruling as the justices consider whether the policy is lawful. The order restores the administration’s ability to carry out removals for now; it doesn’t decide the case on its merits.
The dispute pits executive authority over deportations against court-ordered procedures for migrants facing removal. The justices will hear arguments in December 2026, with a decision expected by July. The brief, unsigned order offered no explanation. The three liberal justices dissented, also without explaining their position.
The authority under dispute
The policy applies to migrants with final deportation orders when the government can’t return them to their homelands or their home countries won’t accept them. It permits removal to third countries, even countries with which migrants have no ties, and covers people with criminal convictions. The administration says receiving governments assure it that migrants won’t face persecution or torture.
The court will consider whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether it could issue a decision applying to the entire class of affected people, and whether the administration’s policy is lawful. The justices also said the administration could propose “other questions” for consideration. The stay remains in effect until the court issues its judgment.
The administration says lower-court requirements disrupted removal operations and sensitive diplomatic negotiations. Federal attorneys said a lower-court ruling forced officials to cancel a deportation flight carrying about 70 people bound for three countries. The administration described “substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations,” said the ruling caused “chaos,” and argued that judicial intervention could cause “significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy.” It also told the court, “Finding third countries willing and able to accept aliens is a delicate diplomatic endeavor.”
Protection claims and removals
The case concerns the Convention Against Torture, which the Senate ratified in 1994 and which generally bars deportation or extradition to countries where a migrant might be tortured. Lower courts have required the government to give notice and a meaningful chance for migrants to raise a credible, country-specific fear of torture or persecution before removal. The Department of Homeland Security says blanket assurances from a destination country are enough.
Attorneys for the migrants argued that denying the administration’s request for a stay wouldn’t prohibit third-country removals or undo existing arrangements. “Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals. Rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully,” they told the Supreme Court. They also alleged that some people removed without meaningful notice or a chance to raise protection claims faced “prolonged and arbitrary detention, beatings and sexual assault, disappearance, and chain refoulement.” Those are allegations made by the migrants’ attorneys.
CNN estimated that 25,000 migrants have been removed under the policy. AP reported that about 25,000 people had been deported to more than two dozen countries through often-secret agreements, including Liberia and Guyana; the vast majority were sent to Mexico. AP also reported that some migrants had been imprisoned in countries they’d never heard of before arriving and faced serious safety risks.
The case moves to arguments
The administration asked the Supreme Court on September 24 to pause a 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals decision that effectively blocked the removals. It also challenged a February ruling by a federal district court in Massachusetts that imposed additional procedural requirements. The court directed its clerk to set a briefing schedule for arguments during its December session.
This is the third time the Supreme Court has allowed the administration to enforce the effort temporarily. White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said the ruling “yet again affirms the lawfulness of the President’s homeland security agenda.” The court hasn’t yet ruled on that question. Its decision will determine whether the administration can continue the policy without the procedures the lower courts required.