The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport certain immigrants to third countries with which they have no prior ties, by halting a lower court ruling that imposed legal protections for affected individuals.
In a brief unsigned order, the justices granted an emergency request from the administration, allowing it to expedite deportations without offering a nationwide opportunity for immigrants to argue that deportation could expose them to torture, persecution, or death. Immigrants may still attempt to file individual claims, but the broad legal protections imposed by the lower court no longer apply.
Related posts
The decision enables deportations to countries such as South Sudan, under deals the U.S. has struck with certain governments.
“The ramifications of the Supreme Court’s order will be horrifying,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.
“It strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death.”
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin praised the ruling, calling it a “victory for the safety and security of the American people.” She added:
“DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them. Fire up the deportation planes.”
Dissenting Voices
The court’s three liberal justices dissented, including Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who sharply criticized the ruling.
“The Court rewards lawlessness,” Sotomayor wrote, accusing the administration of defying previous court orders and prioritizing speed over due process.
She warned that the order would lead to “thousands suffering violence in far-flung locales.”
Her dissent referenced U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who initially ruled that detainees must be notified if the government plans to deport them to any country—whether their country of origin or an alternative. Murphy also said migrants should be given at least 10 days to present their claims.
Murphy’s ruling came after he learned that the administration had flown eight migrants to South Sudan in violation of his order. The men are now reportedly held in a U.S. facility in Djibouti as litigation continues.
Plaintiffs and Background
The plaintiffs in the case—from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, and Guatemala—were already under deportation orders but couldn’t be returned to their home countries. Their lawyers argued that they simply sought “an opportunity to explain why such a deportation will likely result in persecution, torture, and/or death.”
In one instance, O.C.G., a gay man from Guatemala, was allegedly kidnapped and raped in Mexico, a country that was not officially designated for his removal. After a chain of deportations, he was recently returned to the U.S. on June 4.
Foreign Policy and Presidential Authority
Solicitor General D. John Sauer defended the administration’s actions, stating that Judge Murphy’s injunction imposed excessive restrictions that infringed on the president’s authority over foreign policy.
Sauer emphasized that deporting “some of the worst of the worst” often requires delicate negotiations, as many countries refuse to take them back.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a major win for the Trump administration as it seeks to enforce harsher immigration policies, despite ongoing criticism from civil rights groups and legal advocates.
