Supreme Court resumes third-country deportations, sets December hearing

Key points

• The Supreme Court granted an emergency request from the Trump administration to lift court-imposed limits on third-country deportations, allowing the policy to resume immediately.
• The court scheduled oral arguments for December, with a final decision on the legality of the policy expected sometime next year.
• This is the third time the Supreme Court has intervened in this dispute, with the three liberal justices dissenting and indicating they would have denied the government's request.
• The policy has been in place since January 2025, with approximately 15,000 people deported to third countries in 2025, including South Sudan, Eswatini, and Rwanda.
• The lower court ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, required the government to provide written notice and a meaningful opportunity for migrants to challenge their removal to third countries.

Background

The dispute began in March 2025 when four immigrants challenged the policy in federal court in Massachusetts. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an order barring the government from deporting migrants to third countries without first giving them written notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the removal. The Supreme Court has intervened twice before, first in June 2025 to pause Murphy's order, and again in July 2025 to clarify that the pause applied to a later order regarding South Sudan deportations. In February 2026, Murphy issued a final judgment striking down the third-country removal policy, which was largely upheld by the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2026.

How outlets are covering it

The Trump administration, represented by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that the lower court ruling created substantial logistical problems, including the cancellation of flights and added expenses, and prevented the removal of dangerous criminals. The administration contended that no individualized determination is needed because the countries it has made deals with have assured them they would not mistreat the migrants. In contrast, lawyers for the plaintiffs, including Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, argued that the policy is unlawful because it does not provide migrants with a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about safety risks. They noted that the lower court rulings do not require anyone to be released from detention or even prevent third-country removals if people are given a chance to raise objections. The three liberal justices on the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the emergency order, indicating they would have denied the government's request to pause the lower court ruling.

Why it matters

The Supreme Court's decision to resume third-country deportations has immediate consequences for migrants who are at risk of being sent to countries where they may face persecution, torture, or imprisonment. The policy has already resulted in the deportation of tens of thousands of people since 2025, with some reports of mistreatment, including indefinite detention and physical or sexual abuse. The final decision on the legality of the policy is expected to have significant implications for immigration law and the rights of migrants in the United States.

What to watch

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in December, with a final decision on the legality of the third-country removal policy expected sometime next year. The court has instructed the litigants to brief several different questions, including the legality of the DHS guidance, whether Judge Murphy had the power to consider the immigrants' claims, and any other questions the government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case.