The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to revive its third-country deportation policy, pressing the justices to clear the way for the federal government to remove migrants to countries other than their own.

The request, reported by CBS News, marks the latest step in an ongoing legal fight over the government's authority to send foreign nationals to third countries — nations that are neither the United States nor the migrant's country of origin. The administration argues it needs this tool to carry out removals when other options are unavailable.

The policy has been stalled by lower-court rulings. Those decisions blocked the practice, prompting the administration to take the dispute directly to the Supreme Court in an effort to have the injunctions lifted or narrowed while litigation continues.

What the policy does

Under third-country deportation, U.S. authorities do not return a migrant to their home country. Instead, they remove the person to a different state that has agreed to accept them. The government has defended the practice as a lawful exercise of its immigration enforcement powers.

Immigrant advocates and plaintiffs in the litigation have challenged the approach in court. They argue the policy exposes people to serious risk, because a migrant removed to a third country may face danger there or may have no connection to that country at all — no language, family ties, or community.

The legal fight now sits before the Supreme Court, and the administration's filing asks the justices to weigh in.

Who is affected

The dispute directly affects foreign nationals in U.S. removal proceedings whom the government seeks to send to third countries rather than to their countries of origin.

The outcome of the Supreme Court's review will determine whether immigration authorities can resume the practice while the underlying court challenges proceed, or whether the lower-court blocks remain in force for now.

The case is also being watched closely for what it may signal about the scope of executive authority over removals more broadly. A decision allowing the policy to take effect again would restore a significant enforcement tool. A refusal, or an adverse ruling, would leave the injunctions standing.

What happens next

The Supreme Court must now decide whether to grant the administration's request. The justices can act on the application in several ways: they may lift the lower-court rulings and allow the policy to operate, leave the blocks in place while the case continues, or take up the underlying legal questions in full.

No date for a ruling on the request has been set. Migrants in removal proceedings and their representatives should monitor the court's docket, as any order restoring the policy would change the destination options available in ongoing removal cases.

Passport File is not able to provide individual legal advice. Readers with questions about how this litigation may affect a specific case should consult a licensed immigration attorney or an accredited representative, and should rely on official court filings and government announcements for authoritative details.

This article reflects the information currently reported. Passport File will update its coverage when the Supreme Court acts on the administration's application and when official court documents become available.

The core facts of this story are limited at this stage: the Trump administration has urged the Supreme Court to revive the third-country deportation policy after lower courts blocked it. Additional detail — including the specific countries involved, the number of people affected, and the timeline for a decision — will depend on the court's response and on subsequent official filings, which Passport File will report as they emerge.

Readers should treat figures circulating outside official court records with caution. The definitive text of the administration's application, the opposing filings, and any order the justices issue will appear through the Supreme Court's official channels and CBS News' continuing coverage of the case.