Supreme Court to Weigh Legality of Third-Country Deportations

The U.S. Supreme Court has announced it will hear oral arguments in early December regarding the government’s practice of sending deported immigrants to countries not identified in their official removal orders. In an unsigned order, the justices permitted the administration to continue these third-country removals while the high court considers the merits of the legal challenge. A final ruling is expected next year.

The dispute stems from an executive order signed by President Donald Trump in January 2025 directing the Department of Homeland Security to remove noncitizens who remain in the United States despite having deportation orders. Following this directive, DHS issued internal guidance instructing Immigration and Customs Enforcement to evaluate whether individuals who could face torture in their home countries might be sent elsewhere. Subsequent guidance outlined procedures for notifying immigrants and screening them for torture fears before executing such removals.

Lower Court Battles and Appeals

In March 2025, four immigrants filed a lawsuit in a Massachusetts federal court challenging the third-country removals. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy subsequently barred the government from deporting individuals to third countries without providing written notice and a meaningful chance to challenge the removal. Murphy also ruled that DHS must determine whether an immigrant’s fear of torture is reasonable and provide at least 15 days to reopen proceedings if needed.

The legal fight moved through the appeals process, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit largely upholding Murphy’s final judgment striking down the policy. Solicitor General D. John Sauer then asked the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that Murphy’s order hindered removal operations and created logistical and diplomatic problems. Meanwhile, the immigrants argued that the policy unlawfully exposed longtime U.S. residents to persecution without proper legal protections.

Supreme Court Intervention

By a brief order, the Supreme Court put Judge Murphy’s injunction on hold and scheduled oral arguments for December. The court instructed both sides to brief several complex questions, including the legality of the DHS guidance and whether the district court possessed the authority to throw it out. The three Democratic appointees on the court indicated they would have denied the administration’s request to pause the lower court’s ruling.

This ongoing legal battle highlights significant questions over executive authority in immigration enforcement and the procedural rights owed to individuals facing removal. The outcome of the December arguments will ultimately determine whether the administration’s third-country removal procedures can stand or if formal notice and screening rules must be strictly followed.

What This Means for Affected Individuals

For ordinary people navigating the immigration system, this ongoing litigation creates an uncertain landscape regarding how removal orders are executed. Individuals with pending deportation orders who fear being sent to a third country should remain vigilant about any written notices or communications from immigration authorities. Anyone who receives a notice or believes their removal violates due process standards should act quickly to understand their rights.

When dealing with complex immigration enforcement actions or removal proceedings, consulting an immigration lawyer can help you understand your legal options and ensure your rights are properly protected.

This article is general information based on SCOTUSblog and court or agency records available at publication time. It is not legal advice; laws and deadlines differ by state and by case. Published October 2, 2026.