The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to resume deporting individuals with final removal orders to countries other than their own while the justices hear oral arguments in December. The unsigned order effectively reverses a lower court’s decision that had temporarily blocked the practice.
The high court’s action restores a deportation flight that had been canceled after a federal judge’s ruling, according to the Associated Press. The flight was scheduled to transport nearly 70 people to three different countries. The order was supported by the court’s conservative majority, while the three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—would have denied the request and maintained the stay.
Federal law permits deportations to countries other than an individual’s home nation if their country of origin refuses to accept them, under a catchall provision in immigration statutes. The Department of Homeland Security has cited this authority in recent enforcement actions, including agreements with countries such as Liberia, which agreed to accept 1,200 third-country deportees within a year.
The Trump administration has argued that these deportations are necessary to enforce immigration laws and remove individuals who pose security risks. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has played a key role in brokering international agreements to facilitate these removals, according to Fox News. The administration estimates that 25,000 illegal aliens have been deported to third countries under this strategy, a figure described as unprecedented by advocacy groups.
Opponents of the policy, including civil rights organizations, have filed lawsuits to challenge the practice. The ACLU, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and American Immigration Council intervened in a class-action lawsuit to block the deportation of a group of criminal illegal aliens to South Sudan, citing concerns over human rights violations. The lawsuit argues that the administration’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful and that the district court had jurisdiction to halt the deportations.
The Supreme Court’s order did not address the merits of the case but instead allowed the deportations to proceed pending the December hearing. The justices will examine two key questions: whether the lower court had jurisdiction to issue its ruling and whether the government’s guidance on third-country removals complies with federal law. A Reuters report noted that the high court has previously issued emergency orders favoring the Trump administration in similar cases, allowing deportations to continue in the interim.
The policy has sparked debate over immigration enforcement, with supporters emphasizing public safety and opponents raising concerns about due process and international obligations. The administration maintains that the practice aligns with existing federal statutes, while critics argue that it circumvents legal protections for individuals facing deportation.