Trump administration asks Supreme Court to revive third-country deportations

The Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court to let it resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them an opportunity to explain the dangers they might face there.

The emergency request, filed on Sept 24, seeks to suspend a ruling by US District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston while the administration appeals. Murphy found that the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy was unlawful. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of his decision on Sept 18, then allowed it to take effect late on Sept 23.

The Straits Times reported that the Supreme Court had previously intervened in the case by lifting an earlier order from Murphy that temporarily stopped the removals. The latest filing asks the justices to step in again as the administration pursues one of President Donald Trump’s central immigration objectives.

A policy used across dozens of countries

Human rights groups estimate that more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to 29 countries under the policy introduced in 2025. Most were deported to Mexico. Other destinations have included Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic and South Sudan.

The State Department advises Americans against travelling to South Sudan because of dangers including crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. The administration has nevertheless used the country as a destination for migrants who could not be returned directly to their countries of origin.

The policy was developed for cases in which a migrant’s country of origin would not accept the person. It allowed the government to send people to nations that had given diplomatic assurances they would not persecute or torture those removed there.

Where no such assurance existed, US officials were required to tell migrants where they were being sent and examine the possibility of persecution or torture only if the migrants themselves raised the issue. Immigrant-rights organisations argue that this procedure fails to give people a meaningful chance to challenge an unsafe transfer before it happens.

The case began in 2025 after Homeland Security expanded the use of third-country deportations. A class-action lawsuit brought by immigrant-rights groups seeks notice and a hearing for migrants facing removal to countries not named in their deportation orders.

Dispute over notice and due process

Murphy ruled in February that the policy conflicted with immigration procedures and with the due-process guarantee in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution. That protection generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity to be heard before taking certain actions that adversely affect a person.

The challengers say some people removed under the policy have later been transferred by the receiving country to their homeland, despite protection from return. They also say others have suffered abuse, been detained or disappeared.

The administration maintains that the removals are necessary to expel migrants accused of serious crimes when their countries of origin refuse to take them back. In its Supreme Court filing, the Justice Department described the policy as an important means of removing people it considers dangerous.

The department also warned that lower-court restrictions had already forced the government to cancel flights or planned removals involving several countries. It argued that the disruption could damage diplomatic understandings and broader US foreign-policy interests.

Trina Realmuto, an attorney representing the plaintiffs at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the administration’s decision to seek Supreme Court review was expected because officials had repeatedly indicated they would do so. She said the First Circuit’s action on Sept 23 meant that removals by air or ground transport should not proceed.

A rapidly escalating legal battle

The appeals court acted after lawyers challenging the policy told it that the government planned to fly migrants to several African countries on Sept 24. The court’s decision removed a pause that had temporarily kept Murphy’s ruling from taking effect during the Justice Department’s appeal.

The litigation has already produced repeated clashes over compliance with court orders. Murphy found in 2025 that the administration had failed to follow an order requiring additional safeguards before sending a group of migrants to South Sudan. He also concluded that the government had repeatedly violated, or tried to violate, his directives.

The Supreme Court request arrives as the administration continues a broad immigration crackdown that began after Trump returned to office in 2025. Third-country removals are one element of a wider effort to increase deportations, particularly when direct return to a migrant’s home country is not possible.

The justices must now decide whether the lower-court ruling should remain in force while the case proceeds. Until then, the dispute leaves in question whether the administration can continue arranging removals to foreign countries without first allowing affected migrants to present claims about persecution, torture or other serious harm.