The US Supreme Court has lifted a lower-court injunction and cleared the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations.

The decision ends a procedural pause that a federal district court had imposed on removals in which the destination is a country other than the migrant's country of citizenship or last habitual residence.

What the ruling changes

The Court vacated a preliminary injunction that had required US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to give migrants meaningful advance notice of the country to which the government intended to remove them. The injunction had also required the government to give migrants a chance to raise claims that the destination posed a risk of torture or persecution.

By lifting the injunction, the Court allows the Department of Homeland Security to execute third-country removals on the notice schedule the agency sets, while the underlying legal challenge continues in the lower courts.

What is a third-country deportation?

Standard removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act returns a non-citizen to their country of origin. A third-country removal uses a different route. The government sends the migrant to a country that is neither their country of citizenship nor their last habitual residence, but that has agreed to accept them.

US authorities have used the practice for nationals of countries that will not take back their citizens, or where diplomatic conditions block orderly repatriation. Recent destinations cited in litigation include South Sudan, Panama, and Costa Rica.

Who is affected

• Non-citizens in DHS custody with a final order of removal whose home country will not accept their return
• Asylum seekers and others who fear torture or persecution if returned to a third country
• Detained migrants whose removal destination now sits within executive discretion

The ruling does not change who is subject to removal. It removes the additional pre-removal notice requirement that the district court had imposed.

Background

The litigation followed reports earlier in 2025 of rapid removals, when ICE flights carried detainees to South Sudan and other destinations with limited pre-departure notice. Immigrant rights organizations argued that the practice stripped migrants of any meaningful opportunity to assert protection claims.

A federal district judge agreed and issued a preliminary injunction requiring the government to give advance notice and a chance to raise fear-based claims. The Supreme Court's order pauses that injunction.

What happens next

The case returns to the district court for proceedings on a permanent injunction and a final merits decision. The Supreme Court did not reach the underlying constitutional question; it ruled only on whether the interim block should stay in place during the litigation.

ICE now has the legal authority to resume third-country removals immediately. Migrants seeking to contest removal on protection grounds should consult a licensed immigration attorney or an organization accredited by the Department of Justice's Executive Office for Immigration Review.

For the underlying order and any accompanying opinions, readers can consult the Supreme Court's docket at supremecourt.gov. The district-court record is available through PACER.