Supreme Court Lets Trump Administration Resume Third-Country Deportations Pending December Review

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, granted the Justice Department's emergency request to pause a federal judge's ruling that the Department of Homeland Security's third-country deportation policy is unlawful, allowing the administration to immediately resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them a chance to show harms they may face there, according to The Globe and Mail. The unsigned emergency order also cleared the case for oral arguments in December, with a formal ruling on the policy to follow. The Court's three liberal justices dissented from allowing deportations to resume while the litigation continues; the Court holds a 6-3 conservative majority. The paused ruling came from Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who found in February that the policy violates immigration law procedures and Fifth Amendment due process by failing to give deportees notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of Murphy's ruling on Sept. 18.

What happened

The dispute stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by immigrant rights groups challenging the third-country deportation policy, which the administration implemented last year. Under the policy, more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries, according to a human rights groups' tally cited by The Globe and Mail. Ground News cites the Migration Policy Institute placing the figure at roughly 15,000 sent to third countries including South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda. Newser lists destinations including Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Costa Rica and Guyana.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower-court pause "created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations," citing the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people with criminal convictions bound for three countries. The Justice Department called third-country deportations "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens."

DHS General Counsel James Percival welcomed the decision, writing on social media: "A bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike."

Plaintiffs' lawyer Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance said the Court "allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they face persecution or torture. That is a devastating result for people who may be put on a plane before they ever have notice or an opportunity to raise a fear claim."

In a court filing, plaintiffs said the administration has ignored "the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime U.S. residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there." They allege some deportees were beaten, sexually assaulted, detained, disappeared, or transferred by third countries back to home countries from which the U.S. had granted them protection.

Murphy previously found the administration "repeatedly violated, or attempted to violate" his orders, including a 2025 order requiring additional steps before sending a group of migrants to South Sudan.

Why it matters

The emergency order restores, at least for now, one of the administration's most expansive deportation tools while the merits of the case remain undecided. The December arguments and subsequent ruling will determine whether migrants removed to countries where they hold no citizenship are entitled to notice and a chance to raise fear claims before removal, a question the lower courts answered in the plaintiffs' favor. The case also tests the administration's record of compliance with court orders in immigration matters, given Murphy's earlier findings of repeated violations. With more than 25,000 people already removed to 29 countries under the policy, per the human rights groups' tally, the outcome carries consequences for a large population of deportees and for the scope of judicial oversight over removal operations.

How it is being covered

Ground News lists 226 sources carrying the story, 172 of them rated, with a left/centre/right split of 29/54/17 percent and 155 of 172 rated outlets showing high or very high factuality. Coverage skews toward the centre, with left-leaning outlets at 29 percent and right-leaning outlets at 17 percent, and Ground News flags no blindspot in the coverage.

What to watch

Oral arguments at the Supreme Court in December 2026, and the formal ruling that follows, which will decide the policy's legality. Watch also for further litigation over compliance with Murphy's orders, given his prior findings that the administration repeatedly violated or attempted to violate them, and for any new court filings by plaintiffs documenting conditions faced by deportees in third countries. The resumption of removal flights, including whether flights similar to the canceled 70-person deportation proceed, will signal how quickly the policy is being reactivated.

By the numbers

Source snapshot