The US Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, even if those countries have no connection to the individuals being expelled. The 6-3 decision, issued from the Court’s emergency docket, lifts a lower court order that had required the government to give migrants notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest deportation based on fears of torture or persecution in the destination country.
The immediate impact of the ruling centres on eight men from Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico and South Sudan, all of whom were convicted of violent crimes in the US and had completed or nearly completed their sentences. Initially detained in Texas, the group was informed with little warning that they would be deported not to their home countries, but to South Sudan, a nation with which seven of them have no ties.
After a federal judge in Boston intervened, issuing an injunction, the men were transferred to a US military base in Djibouti, where they remained in legal limbo for weeks under constant guard. The Supreme Court’s order now allows the administration to proceed with their deportation to South Sudan, pending further legal proceedings.
The administration’s rationale and policy shift
The Trump administration has argued that the lower court overstepped its authority by requiring the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide advance notice and an opportunity for migrants to challenge deportation to third countries. The administration contends that such requirements hinder its efforts to expedite the removal of individuals it describes as “the worst of the worst” and pose obstacles to its broader immigration crackdown.
Earlier this year, DHS issued new guidance, following an executive order from President Trump, directing immigration authorities to consider deporting noncitizens with final removal orders to third countries if their home nations would not accept them.
Due process and human rights concerns
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a forceful dissent. Justice Sotomayor accused the majority of “rewarding lawlessness” and undermining the foundational principle of due process. She warned that the decision could expose thousands of migrants to violence, torture, or death in unfamiliar and potentially hostile countries, without any meaningful opportunity to be heard.
“The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
Immigrant rights advocates echoed these concerns, describing the ruling as “horrifying” and warning that it removes essential safeguards that have protected vulnerable individuals from torture and death.
What comes next
The Supreme Court’s order is temporary, allowing deportations to third countries to proceed while the underlying legal battle continues in the lower courts. The decision marks another escalation in the Trump administration’s aggressive approach to immigration enforcement and sets a precedent for rapid removals without traditional due process protections.