The US supreme court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries where they hold no citizenship or connection—including unstable and conflict-ridden nations like South Sudan.
In a brief, unsigned order issued Monday, the conservative-majority court paused a lower court’s ruling that had blocked these deportations, allowing the policy to proceed while legal appeals continue. The three liberal justices strongly dissented.
Related posts
This Article Includes
- 0.1 Related posts
- 0.2 ICE Arrests 11 Iranian Nationals with Criminal Records or Suspected Terrorist Ties Across U.S.
- 0.3 Cadaver Dog Deployed in Fourth Week of Manhunt for Fugitive Dad Accused of Killing Daughters
- 1 Judge Accused of Activism
- 2 Murphy’s Findings and Government Pushback
- 3 Third-Country Deportation Policy Expands
- 4 Wider Implications for Immigration Policy
This decision lifts an injunction from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, who previously ruled that migrants must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to raise claims of potential persecution, torture, or death if removed to unfamiliar nations.
Among those affected are a group of men held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. The Trump administration had tried to send them to South Sudan, despite most of them not being citizens of the country. The men come from nations including Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) praised the Supreme Court’s move as a major win. “DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them,” said spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. “Fire up the deportation planes.”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson added, “The Supreme Court’s stay… reaffirms the president’s authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a blistering dissent, accusing the court of enabling “lawlessness” and ignoring basic due process protections.
“In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution,” she wrote. “In this case, the government took the opposite approach.”
Judge Accused of Activism
Judge Murphy, who blocked the deportations last month, came under sharp criticism from Trump and his allies, who labeled him a “far-left activist judge.” Murphy ruled that the administration violated both a previous court order and constitutional due process protections by attempting to deport individuals without proper hearings.
The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups who challenged the administration’s policy of deporting migrants to “third countries”—nations where they have no ties and could face significant danger.
Murphy’s Findings and Government Pushback
In May, Murphy found the government had “unquestionably” violated the law by trying to send eight men, all with U.S. criminal convictions, to South Sudan. The men were instead diverted to Djibouti, where they remain in U.S. custody.
He emphasized that deporting individuals without notice or an opportunity to raise fear-based claims likely violates constitutional protections. His order required non-citizens be given at least 10 days to assert such claims.
In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration argued the men had committed “heinous crimes,” including murder, arson, and armed robbery, and that third-country removals were necessary because their home countries refused to accept them.
Third-Country Deportation Policy Expands
Under updated DHS guidance, the administration may now deport migrants to a third country without further procedures if that country offers credible diplomatic assurances of safety. If no such assurances exist, and a migrant expresses fear, authorities must assess the risk before deportation.
Murphy had ruled that this approach failed to meet constitutional standards. His decision was upheld by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to put it on hold—until Monday’s intervention by the Supreme Court.
Wider Implications for Immigration Policy
This case is one of several immigration-related legal battles since Trump returned to office in January, pledging to carry out the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history.
Earlier this year, the court permitted Trump to end humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants. While it has at times faulted the administration for procedural issues, Monday’s order signals a willingness to back aggressive deportation measures in the absence of full hearings.
As legal challenges continue, the ruling highlights the administration’s broadening power over immigration enforcement—and the growing tensions over the balance between national security and human rights.
