Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to third countries

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration permission to resume deporting migrants to third countries without first allowing them to explain the dangers they may face, marking another legal victory in Trump’s intensified deportation agenda.

The court’s decision overturned a lower court order that had required officials to give migrants facing deportation to so-called “third countries” a meaningful chance to present claims of potential torture or harm while litigation continues. The ruling drew strong criticism from the court’s three liberal justices.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the initial injunction on April 18. The Supreme Court’s unsigned order, typical for emergency rulings, did not include a written explanation and reflected the court's 6–3 conservative majority.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply rebuked the move, calling it a “gross abuse” of judicial power. She criticized the majority for prioritizing government action over the potential suffering of migrants, stating, “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.”

Murphy had concluded that fast-tracking deportations without notice or an opportunity for migrants to raise fear-based claims likely violates constitutional due process protections, which generally require notice and a hearing before adverse government actions.

The Department of Homeland Security had expanded rapid deportations to third countries in February, prompting immigration advocacy groups to file a class action on behalf of migrants at risk of removal without due process.

On May 21, Murphy found the administration in violation of his earlier order after it attempted to deport migrants to South Sudan—despite U.S. State Department warnings against travel there due to violent unrest. In response, the government halted the deportations and detained the individuals at a military base in Djibouti.

Even after the Supreme Court ruling, Murphy clarified that his injunction blocking the deportation of eight men to South Sudan remains in effect.

Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and counsel for the plaintiffs, called the Supreme Court’s action “horrifying,” accusing it of stripping away crucial protections that safeguard vulnerable individuals from torture and death.

The administration argued that the policy meets due process requirements and is essential for deporting criminal non-citizens whose home countries refuse repatriation. According to government filings, the men facing deportation to South Sudan had been convicted of serious crimes such as murder, arson, and armed robbery.

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson praised the decision, calling it a reaffirmation of the president’s authority to deport criminal undocumented immigrants. “Fire up the deportation planes,” added DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.

This case is one of many involving legal disputes over Trump’s immigration policies to reach the Supreme Court since his return to office in January.

In a separate ruling in May, the court allowed the administration to end certain humanitarian protections but criticized its treatment of migrants targeted under the Alien Enemies Act, a centuries-old wartime law, for lacking due process.

Justice Sotomayor further condemned the administration’s handling of court orders, alleging it had disregarded multiple rulings, including in cases involving deportations to Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador. She warned that each instance of the court overlooking executive noncompliance undermines public trust in the judiciary.

“This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” she wrote. “Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”

Meanwhile, Reuters reported that U.S. officials had also considered deporting migrants to Libya, another country known for instability and poor treatment of detainees, despite the U.S.'s prior criticisms of its human rights record.