The US Supreme Court has allowed the federal government to resume fast-track deportations to third countries while a legal challenge proceeds. In a brief order, the justices stayed a lower-court injunction that had required immigration officials to give migrants a meaningful chance to argue they would face torture or persecution in a country other than their own before removal there.

The ruling, issued by the Court in Washington, means US Immigration and Customs Enforcement may once again remove noncitizens to nations they are not from, without the procedural safeguards a district judge had put in place. The order applies "for now" — the underlying case continues in the lower courts, and the Supreme Court has not decided the merits of the dispute.

What changed

Earlier in 2025, US District Judge Brian Murphy, sitting in Boston, had blocked the practice of sending migrants to third countries without advance notice and an opportunity to raise fears of torture under the Convention Against Torture or claims under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Judge Murphy found that removing people without that screening risked sending them to places where they could face persecution.

The Supreme Court's stay pauses that injunction nationwide. Federal immigration authorities regain the ability to carry out third-country removals on an expedited basis, at least until the litigation is resolved. The justices did not explain their reasoning, which is standard for emergency-docket orders.

Justice Ketanji Brown Holmes dissented in a case heard on the Court's emergency, or "shadow," docket. In an earlier related dispute over the same policy, Justice Sonia Sotomayor had criticized the government's tactics, writing that the government had sought emergency relief through unusual procedural routes. Critics of the policy warned that rapid third-country removals leave detainees no realistic chance to object before they are flown out.

Who is affected

The order covers noncitizens in US immigration custody whom the government seeks to remove to a country other than their country of origin. That can include people whose home country refuses to accept deportees, as well as people whose removal orders the government seeks to execute through diplomatic arrangements with third states.

Advocates had argued that some detainees were told only hours — or even minutes — before a flight that they would be sent to a third country such as Libya, Iraq, or South Sudan, leaving no time to consult counsel or file objections. The government maintained that existing procedures already comply with US treaty obligations and that district judges lack authority to impose nationwide limits on enforcement.

What stays the same

The Supreme Court's decision is procedural, not final. The merits of whether third-country removals require advance notice and a fear screening remain before the courts. The stay simply restores the government's prior enforcement posture while the appeal moves forward.

Migrants in removal proceedings retain the right to raise protection claims in their underlying cases. What the stay changes, for now, is the pre-removal safeguard Judge Murphy had ordered: the chance to contest a specific third-country destination before boarding.

Practical steps

Noncitizens facing removal to a third country and their representatives should track the continuing litigation, because any new ruling from the First Circuit or the Supreme Court on the merits could reinstate the notice requirement. The order does not create new forms, deadlines, or quotas; it restores the enforcement position the government held before Judge Murphy's injunction.

Readers seeking case-specific guidance should consult a licensed immigration attorney or an accredited representative. Official court filings in the case, filed with the Supreme Court and the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, remain the authoritative record of the change.