post-thumb

The Supreme Court temporarily permits Trump’s deportations to third countries

The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own while a legal challenge to the policy proceeds. The decision pauses a lower court ruling that found the policy unlawful. The justices are scheduled to hear arguments in December before issuing a final ruling.

The court’s three liberal justices dissented from the interim decision. It does not resolve whether the policy complies with immigration law or constitutional due process requirements. In February, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that migrants must receive notice and an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture before being sent to a third country.

Under the administration’s policy, migrants can be removed without notice to countries that have offered diplomatic assurances against persecution or torture. For other destinations, authorities provide notice but assess potential harm only if migrants independently express fear. The Justice Department argues that third-country deportations are necessary when migrants cannot be returned to the countries listed in their removal orders, including in cases involving people with criminal records.

Immigrant rights groups, which brought the class-action case, say the policy also affects people legally protected from return to their home countries. In court filings, plaintiffs allege that some deportees have been sent onward to those countries or have experienced detention, violence or disappearance. The administration disputes restrictions on its ability to carry out the removals.

Human rights groups estimate that more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, most of them to Mexico. Other destinations include South Sudan, Uganda and Equatorial Guinea. United Nations human rights experts have urged the United States to halt third-country removals, warning that vulnerable migrants could face heightened risks of abuse. The Supreme Court’s final decision on its legality remains pending.

Share: