Supreme Court to Review Trump Administration Third-Country Deportation Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court announced it will hear oral arguments in December in a legal challenge brought by immigrants against the government’s practice of third-country removals. In a brief, unsigned order, the justices cleared the way for the Trump administration to continue deporting individuals to nations not identified in their original removal orders while the dispute moves forward on its merits.

The underlying 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 internal guidance, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement looked into sending undocumented immigrants to alternate locations if they faced potential torture in their home countries. DHS guidance later directed that before such removals occur, officials must follow specific procedures, including notifying immigrants and providing opportunities to voice torture fears.

Legal Battle in the Federal Courts

In March, four immigrants with removal orders filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Massachusetts. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy subsequently barred the government from deporting plaintiffs and others similarly situated to third countries without written notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge the removal. Murphy also ruled that DHS must determine whether immigrants’ fears of torture are reasonable and grant time to seek reopening of proceedings if necessary.

The U.S. Solicitor General subsequently petitioned the Supreme Court multiple times to pause Murphy’s orders. In February, Judge Murphy issued a final judgment striking down the third-country removal policy. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit largely upheld Murphy’s ruling, prompting the government to return to the Supreme Court once more to block the lower court’s decision.

Arguments from the Government and Immigrants

Attorneys for the Trump administration argued that Murphy’s order deprived the government of an essential removal tool, created logistical problems and flight cancellations, and led to added expenses and potential diplomatic issues. They asserted the ruling rested on flawed legal premises.

Conversely, the immigrants countered that Murphy’s decision simply requires the administration to conduct third-country removals lawfully. They argued that the government’s warnings ignore the severe harm of deporting longtime residents without regard to persecution or torture they might face abroad, adding that any delays could be avoided by complying with notice requirements.

Practical Impact for Affected Individuals

The Supreme Court’s order allows third-country removals to proceed while the litigation continues, with a final ruling expected next year. The high court instructed litigants to brief several legal questions, including the validity of DHS guidance and whether the district court had the authority to issue its rulings. Three Democratic-appointed justices indicated they would have denied the administration’s request to keep third-country removals active during the appeal.

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 1, 2026.