WASHINGTON, June 24 — The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to third countries — including conflict-ridden nations like South Sudan — even if the migrants have no connection to those countries, drawing fierce criticism from rights advocates and liberal justices.
In a brief, unsigned order, the court’s conservative supermajority paused a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, who had previously blocked the removals, saying migrants must be given a “meaningful opportunity” to argue they could face torture, persecution, or death if sent to unfamiliar and dangerous nations.
The decision enables the administration to proceed with deportations that had been frozen — including of eight men held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, who officials had attempted to send to South Sudan, despite only one of them actually being from there.
A Controversial Win for Trump Administration
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) praised the ruling, calling it a victory for national security.
“DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them,” spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said. “Fire up the deportation planes.”
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson also celebrated the court’s move, stating that it reaffirms the president’s authority to “remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again.”
Scathing Dissent from Liberal Justices
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a sharply worded dissent joined by two other liberal justices, accused the majority of “rewarding lawlessness” and ignoring the basic rights of migrants.
“In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the government took the opposite approach,” she wrote, warning that thousands could now be sent to dangerous destinations without due process.
Legal Battle Over Third-Country Removals
The case was brought by immigrant rights organizations on behalf of migrants from countries including Cuba, Mexico, Vietnam, Myanmar, and Laos. In May, Judge Murphy ruled that the administration had “unquestionably” violated a prior court order by attempting to deport the group to South Sudan — a nation the U.S. State Department warns against visiting due to high risks of kidnapping, crime, and armed conflict.
Murphy said non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise fears for their safety before being deported. He also condemned DHS for trying to bypass this process by placing detainees on a flight without notice, a move he said violated constitutional due process protections.
Trump-Era Immigration Crackdowns Return
Since returning to office in January, President Trump has revived his hardline immigration agenda, vowing the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history. In recent months, the Supreme Court has upheld several of his immigration policies, including ending humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants.
In March, DHS issued new guidance allowing third-country removals if the receiving nation provides diplomatic assurances of fair treatment — a standard that immigration advocates say is vague and dangerous.
While DHS claims this policy is necessary to deport migrants whose home countries refuse to take them back, critics warn it risks sending people into active conflict zones or countries with horrific human rights records, like Libya and South Sudan.
Despite constitutional concerns, the Supreme Court’s stay means third-country deportations can now resume while the appeals process continues — a ruling that may shape the future of U.S. immigration enforcement.
