Divided Court Lifts Ban on Third-Country Removals

4 hours ago

3647 posts

Divided Court Lifts Ban on Third-Country Removals \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ The Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to resume fast-track deportations to third countries. The decision lifts a lower court order requiring migrants be allowed to challenge removals. Liberal justices sharply dissented, warning of risks of torture and death.

Quick Looks

Conservative-majority court lifts pause on third-country deportations.
Migrants face removal without full legal challenge, per emergency ruling.
Sotomayor leads strong dissent, warns of risk to lives.
DHS declares it a “victory”, plans removals to resume.
Initial deportations diverted mid-flight due to lower court order.
Migrants from Myanmar, Cuba, Vietnam detained, some with serious U.S. convictions.
Attorneys seek protections, cite fear of torture, imprisonment abroad.
South Sudan removals criticized, migrants given less than 16 hours’ notice.
Administration already deported man to Mexico, returned after ruling.
Trump agenda gains momentum with latest high court support.

Deep Look

In a closely watched immigration case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to resume expedited deportations of migrants to third countries, even if those destinations are not their homelands. The decision, issued on the court’s emergency docket without a detailed opinion, temporarily overrides a lower court’s ruling that had blocked the removals until migrants were given the opportunity to argue they faced serious danger.

The ruling marks another significant legal victory for President Donald Trump’s administration as it intensifies its hardline immigration strategy. The court’s conservative majority provided no written rationale, but all three liberal justices signed onto a scathing 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She criticized the decision as exposing vulnerable migrants to grave danger and allowing the administration to bypass legal safeguards.

Emergency Ruling and Deportation Resumption

Homeland Security officials, encouraged by the ruling, indicated that deportation operations to third countries would resume promptly. “Fire up the deportation planes,” said DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin, celebrating the ruling as “a victory for the safety and security of the American people.”

The case stems from a group of migrants from countries including Cuba, Vietnam, and Myanmar, who had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. Unable to return them to their home countries, immigration authorities began seeking third-country alternatives — including South Sudan, a nation plagued by violence and instability.

Earlier this year, eight such migrants were placed on a flight to South Sudan but were diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti after a federal judge issued an emergency order halting the deportations. The group was housed in a converted shipping container under harsh conditions, awaiting further legal action.

Legal Concerns and Human Rights Warnings

Judge Brian E. Murphy, a Biden appointee in Boston, had ruled in April that the deportations violated migrants’ right to raise safety concerns — even after exhausting their normal legal appeals. He emphasized that removal to a third country required additional scrutiny when credible threats such as imprisonment, torture, or death were raised. His decision led to the temporary halt now overturned by the Supreme Court.

Immigration advocates argued the removals to unstable third countries could result in severe human rights abuses. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said migrants feared “imprisonment, torture, and even death” if deported without due process.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor sharply criticized the Trump administration’s disregard for legal norms. “The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” she wrote. She warned that the ruling exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”

Background and Previous Precedents

While Murphy did not prohibit deportations to third countries outright, his ruling mandated that individuals be given adequate time to consult lawyers and present concerns about their safety. In one related case, a gay Guatemalan man was wrongly deported to Mexico, where he was raped and extorted. After legal intervention, he became the first known person to be returned to U.S. custody post-deportation during Trump’s second term.

The Supreme Court previously considered a similar case involving Venezuelans being deported to El Salvador. In that instance, the court temporarily blocked removals, ruling that individuals must be given a “reasonable time” to mount a legal challenge. That case was based on an 18th-century wartime law, which adds complexity to modern immigration enforcement.

Strategic Agreements and Foreign Cooperation

The Trump administration has forged controversial agreements with nations such as Panama and Costa Rica to temporarily house migrants who cannot be repatriated. However, the decision to deport individuals to South Sudan — a country beset by civil conflict since gaining independence in 2011 — sparked particular alarm. Justice Sotomayor noted that the eight migrants sent there in May had less than 16 hours’ notice.

This broader strategy reflects Trump’s push to bypass traditional barriers to deportation by using third countries as fallback destinations — even where such places pose high risks to deportees.

A Shift in Judicial Momentum

This ruling represents yet another in a series of immigration-related victories for Trump before a conservative-leaning Supreme Court. Previous high court decisions upheld his efforts to wind down temporary legal protections for nearly one million immigrants and to implement a ban on transgender troops in the military.

The decision underscores how the court’s emergency docket — sometimes called the “shadow docket” — has become a powerful tool for fast-tracking consequential policy shifts, often without full briefing or public oral arguments.

While the Justice Department is still considering next steps, the Supreme Court’s action gives the Trump administration immediate authority to ramp up removals — a pillar of its broader effort to enforce immigration laws more aggressively.