On June 24, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to lift a nationwide injunction that had previously required the government to provide migrants with advance notice and an opportunity to raise objections before being deported to “third countries”—nations other than their country of origin.
The injunction had been in place since April, when U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that deporting migrants without those procedural protections likely violated the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause. The administration appealed the decision, and the Supreme Court, without issuing an explanation, agreed to allow third-country deportations to proceed while litigation continues.
Background on the Third-Country Deportation Policy
The Department of Homeland Security revived its third-country deportation process earlier this year, aiming to remove non-citizens—particularly those with serious criminal convictions—to countries willing to accept them, even if those individuals have no prior ties to those countries.
Senior Counsel at Manifest Law, Henry Lindpere, offers some context: “What do you do with a person who should be removed from the United States, but there is nowhere to send them to? This is an interesting legal and practical issue that is being litigated now. Most people don’t think about it, but there are thousands of people in the United States who already have removal orders – i.e., an immigration judge has already ruled that they are in the country unlawfully and should be sent back home – but they have not been deported simply because their home country is not cooperating with the U.S. federal government to accept them. Deporting people to third countries means that if someone is not supposed to be in the United States, DHS will find any other country willing to accept them so that they can be deported. The latest Supreme Court order says that DHS can keep doing that for now.”
The administration has argued that the policy is necessary when migrants’ home countries refuse repatriation. However, immigrant advocates have raised concerns that such removals could expose individuals to human rights violations, particularly when the destination countries, like South Sudan or Libya, are experiencing armed conflict or political instability.
In several instances, the government attempted to deport migrants to South Sudan and El Salvador, sometimes without giving them advance notice. Judge Murphy issued multiple orders blocking those removals, citing due process violations and safety risks. He also criticized the administration for what he described as attempts to circumvent his rulings by transferring custody between agencies.
Despite the Supreme Court’s order lifting the broader injunction, Murphy clarified that his narrower, case-specific orders, such as one blocking the deportation of seven men being held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, remain in effect.
If You’re in the U.S. on a Visa: What You Should Know
While this decision primarily impacts individuals already in removal proceedings, especially those with criminal records or denied asylum claims, it raises broader questions about procedural safeguards and enforcement discretion.
If you are a non-citizen living in the U.S. on a temporary visa or green card, this ruling does not directly affect your legal status. However, it does underscore the importance of:
- Maintaining lawful status
- Understanding the terms and risks of any legal infractions, including old charges or convictions
- Staying informed if you are in or near any removal proceedings
“For most work-authorized immigrants, this decision won’t affect their day-to-day status,” said Henry Lindepere, Senior Counsel at Manifest Law. “But for anyone with a pending or reopened removal case, especially those with past criminal matters, the legal landscape just became more uncertain.”
The Bottom Line
The Supreme Court’s decision permits the U.S. government to resume third-country deportations without prior notice or process, at least while the broader legal challenge continues. Though case-by-case court oversight remains possible, system-wide protections have narrowed. Migrants who fear persecution or mistreatment in a third country may now need to raise those claims urgently, sometimes after deportation proceedings have already begun.
Sources:
