The justices cleared the way for the administration to resume removing migrants to countries where they have no ties, and will hear full arguments on the policy in December.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday let the Trump administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own while the legal fight over the policy continues. The court also agreed to take up the case itself, with oral arguments planned for December.
The order was brief and unsigned, and the majority gave no explanation for its decision. The court's three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, would have denied the administration's request. They did not write a dissent.
 |
| The U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C., on March 18, 2026. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images) |
What the court decided
The order does not settle whether the policy is lawful. It pauses a lower-court ruling that had blocked the removals, so deportations can continue until the justices issue a final decision. The court is expected to rule by July, after hearing the case in its term that begins Oct. 5.
The court identified three main questions. They are whether the district court that ruled against the administration had jurisdiction, whether that court could decide the case for the entire group of affected migrants, and whether the policy itself is lawful. The justices also said the administration could propose other questions. One account of the order said they asked both sides to focus their briefs on the lower court judge's authority and on whether the policy violates the Constitution and international protections against torture.
Emergency-docket rulings like this one are not final decisions on the merits, though they can hint at how the court is leaning. This is the third time the court has allowed the policy to be enforced on a temporary basis.
How the policy works
The administration began the program last year as part of its broader immigration crackdown. Officials say it is needed for immigrants who have final removal orders but cannot be sent home. In some cases, federal law protects them from return to countries where they would likely face persecution. In others, their home governments refuse to take them back. Administration officials say the group includes violent criminals.
Under the policy, those migrants can be sent to a different country, even one where they have no connection. According to court records, the Department of Homeland Security has sent more than 25,000 migrants to third countries since February of last year, mostly in Latin America and Africa. Countries that have received deportees include Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Costa Rica, Honduras and the Central African Republic.
The program drew scrutiny last year when immigrant rights groups revealed that a group of migrants headed for South Sudan was being held in Djibouti, in a converted shipping container.
The legal dispute
The case centers on the Convention Against Torture, which the Senate ratified in 1994. It generally bars sending people to countries where they may be tortured, but it says little about how the government should make that determination or what process migrants are owed.
Lower courts found that migrants must receive notice and a chance to raise a credible fear of torture before being removed. A Boston-based federal appeals court ruled in September that the policy does not give migrants enough notice or opportunity to claim fear of torture or persecution. The Department of Homeland Security has argued that blanket assurances from the receiving country, promising that no deportee will be tortured, are enough.
The administration filed its emergency request on Sept. 24. It argued that the appeals court ruling had caused substantial logistical problems for ongoing removals, including canceled flights, added costs and potential diplomatic complications. The Justice Department also said lower courts had kept ruling against the policy despite earlier Supreme Court orders allowing it.
Lawyers for the migrants pointed out that the lower courts had now entered a final judgment, unlike the earlier preliminary rulings that reached the justices. They also argued that denying the request would not end third-country removals. In their words, it "simply requires them to do so lawfully."
Reaction
James Percival, the top lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security, called the ruling a "victory." Attorney General Todd Blanche also praised it in a post on X, calling the policy lawful and a critical enforcement tool. White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said the ruling again affirms the lawfulness of the president's homeland security agenda.
Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helped bring the lawsuit, called the outcome a "devastating result." She said people could be put on a plane without notice or a chance to make a protection claim. The plaintiffs say many of those affected are not criminals.
What happens next
Deportations to third countries can continue while the case proceeds. Both sides will file briefs before the December arguments, and a final decision is expected by July.