Washington.Media-Supreme Court Clears Trump Administration to Deport Migrants to Third Countries

Foreward

Overview of the Ruling

On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision that allows the Trump administration to resume deportations of migrants to countries other than their places of origin without providing them additional due process protections.

The court’s brief, unsigned order lifted a lower court injunction that had required the government to give migrants a “meaningful opportunity” to raise fears of torture, persecution, or death before being sent to third countries.

This ruling represents a significant victory for President Trump’s immigration enforcement agenda, which has prioritized mass deportations as part of a broader crackdown on unauthorized immigration.

The decision came in response to an emergency appeal from the administration after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts had blocked such deportations in April 2025.

The Legal Framework and Context

Third-Country Deportation Process

Third-country deportations involve sending migrants to nations other than those specified in their original removal orders from immigration judges.

The Trump administration has pursued agreements with countries including El Salvador, Guatemala, Kosovo, Rwanda, Costa Rica, and Panama to accept expelled migrants from the U.S. regardless of their country of origin.

The administration argues that these deportations are necessary to remove what they describe as “the worst of the worst” - individuals who have committed serious crimes and whose countries of origin are often unwilling to accept them back.

According to government filings, the migrants involved in the current case were convicted of violent crimes, including murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and armed robbery.

Judge Murphy’s Injunction

The legal battle centered on a nationwide preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy on April 18, 2025.

Murphy’s order required the Department of Homeland Security to provide migrants facing third-country removal with several procedural protections

Written notice of the third country to which they may be deported

A “meaningful opportunity” to raise fears of torture, persecution, or death in that destination country

At least 10 days to raise safety concerns

At least 15 days to challenge an adverse finding by an immigration officer

Murphy emphasized that migrants deserved “a small modicum of process” mandated by the Constitution, finding that the government’s approach to executing third-country removals without adequate due process likely violated constitutional requirements.

The Case That Triggered Supreme Court Review

The South Sudan Deportation Attempt

The immediate catalyst for the Supreme Court’s involvement was the Trump administration’s attempt in May 2025 to deport eight migrants to South Sudan with less than 24 hours’ notice.

The group included individuals from Myanmar, South Sudan, Cuba, Mexico, Laos, and Vietnam, but only one person was actually from South Sudan.

Judge Murphy found that this action “unquestionably” violated his April injunction and blocked the deportation.

The flight was ultimately diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the migrants have remained detained while legal proceedings continue.

Conditions in Djibouti

The migrants and their ICE guards have been held at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti under what officials describe as dire conditions.

According to ICE official Melissa Harper’s sworn declaration, the detainees are housed in a converted shipping container that serves as a conference room, with daily temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.

The facility faces multiple challenges, including inadequate security equipment, exposure to malaria, nearby burn pits that create unhealthy smoke, and proximity to potential rocket attacks from Houthi rebels in Yemen.

Both migrants and officers have reported illness with symptoms including coughing, difficulty breathing, fever, and joint pain.

Supreme Court Decision and Dissent

The Majority’s Ruling

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority granted the Trump administration’s emergency request without explaining its decision, which is typical for emergency orders.

The ruling effectively stays Judge Murphy’s injunction while legal proceedings continue in lower courts, allowing the administration to resume third-country deportations immediately.

Sotomayor’s Scathing Dissent

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a forceful 19-page dissent condemning the majority’s decision.

Sotomayor accused the court of “rewarding lawlessness” and enabling the Trump administration’s “flagrantly unlawful conduct”.

In particularly sharp language, Sotomayor wrote: “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 when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled”.

She characterized the majority’s use of discretion as “as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable”.

The dissenting justices warned that the decision exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death” and undermines fundamental due process protections.

Sotomayor noted“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”.

Implications and Broader Immigration Context

Immediate Impact

The Supreme Court’s decision immediately clears the way for the Trump administration to resume expedited deportations to third countries without the additional procedural safeguards that Judge Murphy had required.

The Department of Homeland Security celebrated the ruling on social media with the message “Fire up the deportation planes”.

Immigration lawyers expect the decision to open the floodgates for many individual claims to be brought before lower courts over third-country deportation orders. They argue that lower-court judges still retain the power to block deportations on a case-by-case basis.

Part of Broader Immigration Crackdown

This ruling represents the latest victory for Trump’s comprehensive immigration enforcement agenda since returning to office in January 2025.

The administration has already moved to terminate Temporary Protected Status programs affecting hundreds of thousands of migrants from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Nicaragua.

The Supreme Court has generally supported the administration’s immigration policies, having previously allowed Trump to end humanitarian programs that permitted hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work temporarily in the United States.

However, the justices have occasionally pushed back, criticizing some aspects of the administration’s approach to due process protections in April.

International Diplomatic Considerations

The administration has emphasized that third-country deportations require careful diplomatic negotiations, arguing that Judge Murphy’s injunction was “creating chaos in the third-country removal process” and disrupting “sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts”. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer contended that the injunction created a “diplomatic and logistical morass”.

The case highlights the complex intersection of immigration law, foreign policy, and human rights considerations, particularly regarding deportations to countries experiencing political instability and conflict like South Sudan, which the State Department has warned Americans not to visit due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict”.

This Supreme Court decision fundamentally reshapes the landscape for third-country deportations, prioritizing the administration’s enforcement objectives over the additional due process protections that immigrant rights advocates argued were constitutionally required.