The US Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 29, allowed President Donald Trump's administration to temporarily resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, without first giving them a chance to challenge their removal on human rights grounds.

The apparent 6-3 emergency order lifted a lower court requirement that migrants receive adequate notice and an opportunity to raise concerns that they could face persecution or torture in the destination countries. The court did not explain its reasoning, which is typical for emergency orders.

The ruling is temporary. It does not settle whether the administration's policy is lawful. The justices said they will hear arguments in the case in December, with a decision expected by July. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Deportation flights can restart

The administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court ruling disrupted its ability to carry out what it calls "third-country" removals. Officials said the earlier order had forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying around 70 people to three countries.

The policy allows the administration to deport migrants with final removal orders to countries other than their homeland, including in cases where home countries refuse to accept their own nationals. The government says destination countries provide assurances that migrants will not be persecuted or tortured.

The administration has entered agreements with more than two dozen countries and has removed an estimated 25,000 migrants under the policy, according to information cited in the case. Most have been sent to Mexico. Others have been deported to countries including Liberia and Guyana.

Immigrant rights groups have criticized the policy, particularly over concerns about migrants being sent to countries where they have no connections. One case highlighted by rights groups involved migrants initially being sent towards South Sudan and subsequently detained in Djibouti.

What the court will decide

When the Supreme Court hears the case in December, it will examine several questions. These include whether the administration's third-country deportation policy is lawful, whether the lower court had jurisdiction to hear the case, and whether that court had authority to impose a nationwide restriction.

Attorney General Todd Blanche described the policy as "entirely lawful and a critical tool for immigration enforcement" following Tuesday's ruling.

Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and a lawyer representing migrants in the case, said the order allows the administration to resume removals to countries where people could face "persecution, torture, imprisonment, or other grave danger". She also stressed that Tuesday's decision did not determine whether the policy itself is legal. The Supreme Court will now consider that question on an expedited schedule.

Who is affected

The order applies to migrants with final removal orders who face deportation to countries other than their own. For now, the procedural safeguards that required adequate notice of the destination country and a chance to raise persecution or torture concerns no longer apply while the case proceeds.

This article reports on a court ruling and does not constitute legal advice. Readers with pending removal cases should consult the official court documents and the US Supreme Court's docket for the December arguments and subsequent rulings.