On September 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order clearing the way for the Trump administration to resume its controversial practice of deporting immigrants to "third countries" — nations where they have no prior connections — while the justices prepare to hear full oral arguments on the policy's legality in December.
The justices, with the court's three liberals dissenting, granted an emergency request filed by the government seeking to block an appeals court ruling that said the current process is unlawful because the affected people are not given a proper chance to raise concerns about safety risks in violation of federal immigration law.
What the Ruling Means
The Supreme Court cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume swiftly deporting migrants to countries other than their own, temporarily blocking a lower court ruling that had required advance notice and a chance to raise fear-based claims before such removals.
The court did not explain its reasoning in a brief, unsigned order.
The vote was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in dissent.
The dissenters did not elaborate in their filing.
However, in previous iterations of this case, Justice Sotomayor has written forcefully about the risks the policy poses.
Three justices dissented sharply from the order, warning it could expose people to persecution, torture, or death, with Sotomayor warning that executing rapid third-country removals without notice risks subjecting migrants to persecution, torture, or death.
In staying the order, the Supreme Court directed the parties to prepare arguments on the district court's authority to adjudicate the case, as well as on the legality of the Trump administration policies establishing third-country removals.
The high court likely will not rule on the policy until next year.
The Legal Journey So Far
The legal saga traces back to early in President Trump's second term.
In January 2025, upon returning to office, Donald Trump announced a series of programs aimed at cracking down on immigration. One of the more controversial policies involved sending immigrants to third countries, sometimes including nations halfway around the world from an immigrant's homeland.
Four noncitizens filed the class-action lawsuit in March 2025, challenging the administration's policy of deporting people to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture there.
In February of this year, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that affected immigrants were entitled to various protections, including "meaningful notice before removal to any third country" and the opportunity to challenge removal to any specific third country. The ruling set aside the policy. The First U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed that judgment on September 18.
Trump filed an emergency appeal on September 24 seeking to pause the decision from the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The administration had argued that time was of the essence because the appeals court decision had "created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations."
The ruling is the third instance in which the administration asked the Supreme Court for relief in the case.
Scope and Scale of the Policy
The numbers underscore the significance of this decision.
About 15,000 people were deported to third countries in 2025, according to the Migration Policy Institute, with Mexico receiving the majority.
Through August 31, 2026, the total count of third-country transfers had reached at least 25,447 people.
The administration has carried out third-country deportations to politically unstable South Sudan, which the U.S. State Department urges Americans to avoid due to the risks of crime, kidnapping and armed conflict, as well as Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic, and other nations.
Trump campaigned on a pledge to implement the "largest deportation operation in American history," and his officials have argued that third-country deportations are a means of removing individuals whose home countries may not accept them.
Reactions From Both Sides
The administration welcomed the ruling.
DHS General Counsel James Percival said in a statement: "A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike. It's not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home."
Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices the third-country deportation policy amounted to "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens."
Immigrant rights advocates, however, expressed alarm.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance representing plaintiffs, said the Supreme Court action "means that people facing removal to third countries are once again at immediate risk of being sent to places where they have no meaningful opportunity to seek protection. That is an enormous consequence for people whose lives and safety are on the line."
The immigrants countered that the district court's decision "does not prevent third-country removals; rather, it simply requires" the Trump administration "to do so lawfully." They told the justices that the administration's arguments "ignore 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."
More than a dozen UN human rights experts have written to the U.S. government urging a halt to policies that they said were putting migrants at heightened risk of abuse, including torture and persecution. "At gravest risk are children, women, persons with disabilities, victims of trafficking, LGBT persons, human rights defenders, stateless persons and other people in extremely vulnerable situations," they said.
Practical Implications for Immigrants and Their Families
This ruling has immediate, real-world consequences for noncitizens in the United States who have final orders of removal. The Supreme Court's stay means that the government can resume removing individuals to third countries without the procedural safeguards — including written advance notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-based claims — that the lower courts had required.
Many people first learn that they are being deported to a third country while on the flight overseas. Even when a country has not credibly promised to refrain from torture or persecution, DHS still generally gives individuals only 24 hours' notice that they will be deported to a particular country, with no guaranteed opportunity to speak with an attorney.
The legal question at the center of the case revolves around the Convention Against Torture, ratified by the Senate in 1994, that generally bars deportation or extradition to countries where there is a possibility that the migrant might be tortured.
Individuals with pending removal orders — particularly nationals of countries that refuse to accept deportees, such as Cuba, Venezuela, and Vietnam — should be aware that they may face removal to an unfamiliar third country with little to no warning. Immigration attorneys strongly advise those in this situation to consult legal counsel immediately to explore all available avenues of relief, including Convention Against Torture claims and any outstanding motions to reopen proceedings.
What Comes Next
The Court will hear oral arguments in December and then issue a definitive ruling on the issue.
The justices said they want to hear arguments on whether the district court was right to hear the case in the first place, as well as whether the Trump administration's third-country removal policy is legal.
The December arguments will be closely watched, as they could establish binding precedent on the due process protections available to noncitizens facing third-country removal — a question with implications far beyond this single case. Until the Court issues its final ruling, likely in early 2027, the administration retains the authority to carry out these deportations without the procedural safeguards the lower courts had mandated.
For immigrants and their families navigating this uncertain legal terrain, the most critical step is securing experienced immigration counsel. The legal landscape is shifting rapidly, and the window for raising claims of persecution or torture may be far narrower than many realize.
Clinch Law Firm continues to monitor this developing case and will provide updates as the December oral arguments approach. If you or a family member may be affected by this policy, we encourage you to contact our office for a consultation.