The US Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, cleared the Trump administration to continue deporting migrants to third countries without prior notice. The court granted the government's request for a stay, pausing a lower court order that had blocked the policy, and agreed to take up the case for oral argument in December.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the decision.

The ruling means federal officials can enforce rapid third-country removals for now, while the underlying legality of the policy remains undecided.

What the lower court found

Earlier in September 2026, a three-judge panel of the First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that immigrants were not receiving adequate notice before deportation to nations where they have no ties or connections.

"An individual's right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination," Circuit Judge Seth Aframe wrote in the panel's opinion.

The Supreme Court's stay pauses that appellate ruling pending review.

Scale of third-country removals

About 25,000 people have been deported to so-called third countries during the Trump administration's ongoing immigration crackdown, according to the immigrant rights organizations Human Rights First and Refugees International.

Immigration lawyers and advocates note that third-country removals are not new, but they have historically been rare. In recent months, the administration has expanded the practice after building a network of formal agreements with nearly three dozen countries to accept asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants with criminal records, often with little to no warning to the individuals concerned.

Who is affected

The policy applies to asylum seekers, refugees, and migrants with criminal records whom US officials remove to countries other than their country of origin. Under the stay, such removals may proceed without advance notice of the destination country and without a prior opportunity for the individual to contest that destination.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear argument in December on whether the policy violates federal statute, due process protections, and the protections against torture.

Reaction

Trina Realmuto, the attorney who sued the Trump administration over third-country deportations, told ABC News that the Supreme Court's order "is a devastating result for people who may be put on a plane before they ever have notice or an opportunity to raise a fear claim."

"But today's order does not decide whether the administration's third-country removal policy is lawful," Realmuto said. "The Court has agreed to hear that question, including whether the policy violates the statute, due process, and the protections against torture."

ABC News previously interviewed a group of Latin American men deported to the Central African Republic who said they were not informed of their destination until several hours into the flight.

"I feel kidnapped," one of the men, Aristides Fernandez Garcia, said. "They have violated all the rights that exist in life, because we are human beings."

What changes and when

For now, the operative rule is the Supreme Court's stay issued Tuesday, September 29, 2026: the First Circuit's notice requirement does not apply while the case is pending. The decisive question — whether rapid third-country removals without prior notice are lawful — will be argued before the Supreme Court in December 2026. The court's eventual ruling will determine whether notice and an opportunity to contest the destination country become mandatory before any third-country removal.

Readers with individual immigration questions should consult a qualified immigration attorney and refer to official court filings and the Supreme Court's docket for the authoritative terms of the order.