The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant legal victory on Monday, allowing his administration to resume the deportation of migrants to so-called “third countries”—nations that are not their own—without first giving them a chance to argue that they could face violence or torture upon arrival.
The court’s unsigned emergency order, issued with no explanation as is typical in such rulings, lifted a lower court’s injunction that had temporarily halted the policy. The decision drew a blistering dissent from the court’s three liberal justices, led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who called the move “as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”
Controversial Deportations to Dangerous Destinations
At the heart of the case was an April ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, who had ordered the administration to give migrants facing deportation to third countries a “meaningful opportunity” to present claims of fear or risk—particularly in cases involving volatile regions like South Sudan.
A Venezuelan migrant reacts after arriving with fellow migrants on a deportation flight from U.S. on a deportation flight at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela June 17, 2025. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
Murphy found that the administration’s rapid-deportation policy likely violated the U.S. Constitution’s due process protections. The Department of Homeland Security had in February stepped up its use of third-country removals, a tactic criticized by immigrant rights groups who argued it stripped vulnerable migrants of legal protections against torture or death.
The Supreme Court’s decision clears the way for deportations to proceed while litigation continues.
Outcry from Rights Advocates and Dissenting Justices
Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents plaintiffs in the case, called the court’s ruling “horrifying.”
A Venezuelan migrant reacts after arriving with fellow migrants on a deportation flight from U.S. on a deportation flight at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela June 17, 2025. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissenters, warned that the Court was enabling the government to ignore judicial oversight. “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,” she wrote.
She also criticized the administration’s previous deportation attempts to unstable destinations, such as South Sudan—despite U.S. government travel warnings—as well as past transfers through Guantanamo Bay to countries like El Salvador. In her opinion, these moves “openly flouted” court orders.
“This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last,” Sotomayor added.
Administration Defends the Policy
The Trump administration defended its third-country deportation strategy as legal and necessary. It argued that the policy already includes sufficient procedural safeguards and is especially important for removing migrants convicted of serious crimes—many of whom face resistance from their countries of origin, which often refuse to take them back.
A Venezuelan migrant reacts after arriving with fellow migrants on a deportation flight from U.S. on a deportation flight at Simon Bolivar International Airport, in Maiquetia, Venezuela June 17, 2025. REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
“All the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed heinous crimes in the U.S., including murder, arson, and armed robbery,” the administration told the Court.
As reported in Reuters, in a statement following the ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson praised the decision, saying it “reaffirms the president’s authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again.”
“Fire up the deportation planes,” added Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary at the Department of Homeland Security.
Legal Landscape Shifting
The case is just one of a growing number of immigration-related legal battles to reach the Supreme Court since Trump’s return to office in January. In May, the justices allowed the administration to terminate humanitarian programs that had protected hundreds of thousands of migrants, though they faulted its treatment of certain individuals under the Alien Enemies Act.
In that separate case, Justice Sotomayor also raised concerns about the administration’s failure to comply with lower court rulings.
The 6-3 conservative majority on the court has generally sided with the Trump administration on immigration issues, signaling a judicial climate increasingly receptive to hardline border enforcement measures.
As legal proceedings continue, Judge Murphy’s injunction preventing the deportation of eight South Sudanese men remains in effect. However, with Monday’s ruling, the broader class of migrants facing third-country deportations may now be returned without further hearings or notice—potentially to unstable or dangerous countries.
