The US Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they may face. The decision restores one of the administration's key tools for rapid expulsions as part of its immigration crackdown.

The court granted the Justice Department's emergency request to put on hold a ruling by Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy, who had found the Department of Homeland Security's policy of removing migrants to so-called third countries unlawful. The justices also agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in December, with a formal ruling on the merits to follow.

The court's 6-3 conservative majority carried the decision. Its three liberal justices dissented from allowing the deportations to resume immediately while the litigation continues.

Who is affected

The case stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups on behalf of migrants seeking to block the US government from sending them to third countries without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy implemented last year, according to a tally by human rights groups, with the vast majority going to Mexico.

The administration has carried out third-country deportations to politically unstable South Sudan, which the US State Department urges Americans to avoid due to the risks of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict, as well as Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic, and other nations.

The policy emerged in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security moved to step up deportations of migrants who cannot be returned to any country listed on their deportation orders. Under its terms, migrants could be swiftly removed without notice to third countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurances they will not persecute or torture the individuals. For countries without such assurances, deportees would be notified of their destination, and US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture only if the individual raised such fear on their own.

Reactions from both sides

Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the court's decision. "A bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike," Percival wrote on social media.

Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the court has "allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they face persecution or torture. That 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."

The legal record so far

Murphy ruled in February that the policy violates immigration law procedures and due process protections under the US Constitution's Fifth Amendment. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.

The Supreme Court has previously sided with the administration in this same dispute. It suspended a preliminary order Murphy issued earlier in the case halting the removals, and later lifted limits the judge had imposed to protect a group of men from being sent to South Sudan.

The Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Murphy's ruling on September 18.

The proceedings have been contentious. Murphy found that the administration "repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate" his orders, including a 2025 order requiring additional steps before attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan.

In its emergency filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said third-country deportations are "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens." Murphy and critics of the administration countered that the policy also targets migrants who had been granted legal protection from being sent back to their home countries.

Plaintiffs said in a court filing that the policy has resulted in deportees being unlawfully transferred by third countries back to home countries from which the US had already granted them protection, while others have been beaten, sexually assaulted, detained, or have disappeared. The administration, they argued, is ignoring "the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime US residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there."

The Supreme Court's December arguments will determine whether the policy survives permanently.