U.S. Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Deportation of Immigrants to Third Countries

October 1, Washington – The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to swiftly deport immigrants to third countries outside of their own, opening the way for such removals to continue for the time being. In a one-page order issued Tuesday, the Court permitted the reinstatement of a policy that a lower court had previously blocked, allowing deportations to third countries on an interim basis. However, the Supreme Court did not rule on the legality of the policy itself.

The Court scheduled a prompt hearing on the matter and set oral arguments for December, with a final decision on the policy expected next year. This case raises important constitutional questions about the limits of presidential authority over immigration and deportation. Notably, the Tuesday order did not include the number of justices voting or signatures—a typical practice in emergency decisions by the Court.

The central issue for the December hearing will focus on whether the Trump administration has the authority to deport immigrants to countries with which the immigrants have no direct ties. Previously, the administration has removed immigrants to countries including Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Costa Rica, Honduras, and the Central African Republic.

Several of these countries have faced allegations of human rights abuses, fueling opposition to the policy amid concerns that deported immigrants could face persecution or torture. Three liberal justices dissented from the order, arguing that the government’s request should be denied. Ahead of the hearing, the Court instructed both sides to focus on two main questions: first, whether the lower court had the authority to block the expedited deportations; and second, whether the policy of deporting immigrants to third countries conflicts with the U.S. Constitution and international protections against torture.

Supporting the government, James Percival, the chief legal official at the Department of Homeland Security, called the Supreme Court’s order a “victory” for the administration. He characterized the ruling as a setback for criminals and advocates of open borders, and referenced a government program offering voluntary returnees $3,000 and plane tickets home. Conversely, Trina A. Realmuto, an attorney with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance representing immigrant rights, condemned the Court’s order as “devastating,” stating it permits the government to send people back to third countries where they may face persecution or torture. However, she noted that the Court’s order did not ultimately rule the policy lawful, emphasizing that a detailed hearing in December will address the policy’s legality, with a final resolution to follow.