In a significant legal victory for the Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the federal government to restart rapid deportations of migrants to third countries — not their countries of origin — without giving them the opportunity to fully challenge the decision in court.
The 6–3 ruling, with all three liberal justices dissenting, lifts a lower court’s injunction and paves the way for renewed use of agreements the U.S. has struck with countries like Panama, Costa Rica, and South Sudan to house deported migrants when repatriation to their homelands isn’t feasible.
The case came to the high court after U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston blocked the deportation of several migrants — including individuals from Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cuba — citing concerns that they could face torture or death in the third countries where they were being sent.
In May, eight migrants were removed from the U.S. and placed on a plane bound for South Sudan, a nation beset by internal conflict. After Judge Murphy’s order intervened mid-flight, the plane was diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the migrants were housed in a repurposed shipping container under difficult conditions.
The Biden-appointed Judge Murphy had ruled that while deportations to third countries are not prohibited, migrants must be granted a real opportunity to present evidence that their lives would be at risk. The Trump administration’s actions, he said, denied them that right.
In a forceful 19-page dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, condemned the majority’s decision, saying it exposed “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
“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,” Sotomayor wrote.
The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning, consistent with the typical handling of emergency docket decisions.
The ruling underscores the court’s broader trend of siding with the Trump administration in immigration matters. In recent months, the conservative-majority court has allowed the White House to roll back temporary legal protections for nearly one million immigrants and has shown a willingness to defer to executive authority on border enforcement.
The administration has pointed to logistical barriers as justification for the policy. Certain countries refuse to accept deportees, prompting Trump officials to arrange alternate destinations under new international agreements.
“This is about protecting America’s borders and ensuring that individuals with serious criminal histories are removed swiftly,” a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson said.
Critics argue the policy sidesteps due process and places vulnerable individuals in dangerous situations. In a separate case, the Trump administration was forced to return a gay Guatemalan man who had been deported to Mexico, where he was reportedly raped and extorted. That case, also presided over by Judge Murphy, marked the first known reversal of a deportation under Trump’s second term.
As legal battles continue over the administration’s aggressive immigration stance, civil rights advocates warn the latest ruling could have far-reaching consequences for asylum seekers and refugees.
“The ruling effectively silences the most vulnerable,” said a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch. “It puts political expediency above human dignity.”
The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to intensify scrutiny over U.S. deportation practices and increase pressure on Congress and the courts to define clearer limits on executive authority in matters of immigration and human rights.