The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene and clear the way for deporting migrants to third countries — nations other than their country of origin, according to The Detroit News.

The request targets a lower court order that currently blocks U.S. immigration authorities from removing migrants to third countries without giving them a meaningful chance to argue they face persecution or torture there.

The case centers on a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who issued a nationwide injunction on the practice. Under Judge Murphy's order, migrants facing removal to a third country must receive notice and an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before deportation proceeds.

The administration argues that the injunction oversteps the judiciary's role and intrudes on the executive branch's authority over immigration enforcement and foreign affairs. Government lawyers contend that requiring case-by-case fear screenings before third-country removals would impose unworkable procedural burdens on deportation operations.

The Supreme Court filing represents a significant escalation in the ongoing legal battle over U.S. deportation policy. Third-country removals allow the government to send migrants to nations with which they have no connection, a practice immigrant advocates say exposes people to danger in places where they have no ties, no language skills, and no legal status.

Rights groups challenging the practice, including represented plaintiffs in the underlying litigation, argue that deporting people to countries they have never lived in — without assessing the risks they might face — violates U.S. obligations under immigration law and international conventions against refoulement.

The term "refoulement" describes the return of a person to a territory where they face threats of persecution or torture.

Under the procedures Judge Murphy's order requires, a migrant slated for removal to a third country would receive advance notice of the destination country and a chance to raise a fear claim. An immigration officer would then assess that claim before removal could proceed.

The administration's emergency application asks the Supreme Court to stay the lower court's injunction while litigation continues, which would allow third-country deportations to resume immediately if granted.

The Supreme Court has not indicated when it will act on the request. The justices may rule on the stay application without full briefing, deny it, or ask for additional argument.

The outcome will affect thousands of migrants currently in U.S. removal proceedings whose deportations to third countries have been paused under the injunction. Immigration enforcement agencies would regain the ability to arrange removals to nations that agree to accept them, under agreements the administration has pursued with various governments.

Advocates warn that people deported to third countries often arrive with no community support, limited access to asylum procedures, and uncertain legal status. The governments receiving them, critics note, may have poor human rights records or weak protections for foreigners.

The case is one of several immigration disputes moving through the federal courts involving the Trump administration's enforcement agenda, and the Supreme Court's response will signal how much deference the justices will give the executive branch on removal operations.

Migrants in removal proceedings and their representatives can monitor the docket through the Supreme Court's official case filings. The court's order on the stay application, once issued, will determine whether third-country removals resume while the underlying litigation proceeds in lower courts.