The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries that are not their nations of origin, even without providing them the opportunity to explain potential harm they may face in the destination country.
The court’s unsigned emergency ruling, delivered on Monday, overturned an earlier injunction by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who had required the administration to grant migrants a “meaningful opportunity” to raise fear-based claims before being removed to so-called “third countries.” The decision drew strong dissent from the court’s three liberal justices.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a scathing dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, called the move “a gross abuse” of judicial authority, saying the court had disregarded the rights of thousands at risk of violence. “Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers,” Sotomayor wrote.
The legal battle began after the Department of Homeland Security, in February, intensified efforts to remove certain migrants—particularly those with criminal records—to third countries. Immigration rights groups filed a class-action suit, arguing that the policy denied due process. Judge Murphy ruled that the removals likely violated constitutional protections and temporarily blocked deportations, including to volatile destinations such as South Sudan.
Despite Monday’s Supreme Court decision, Murphy clarified that his specific order halting the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan remains in effect. The U.S. State Department has warned citizens to avoid South Sudan due to widespread violence and instability.
Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, representing the plaintiffs, called the ruling “horrifying,” saying it removes “critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death.”
The Trump administration defended the policy, arguing it complies with due process and is necessary to remove migrants who commit serious crimes. The White House said the affected individuals had been convicted of offenses including murder, arson, and armed robbery.
“The Supreme Court’s stay of a left-wing district judge’s injunction reaffirms the president’s authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again,” said White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson. “Fire up the deportation planes,” added DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
Justice Sotomayor also raised alarm over the administration’s record of compliance, citing previous removals that allegedly defied court orders, including deportations to Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador.
This ruling is part of a series of recent high-profile immigration cases reaching the Supreme Court since Trump returned to office in January. In May, the court allowed the administration to end certain humanitarian protections, while also criticizing the use of the Alien Enemies Act—a centuries-old wartime statute—as a basis for removals.
The administration has also reportedly considered deporting migrants to Libya, another unstable nation with a documented history of human rights violations.
