The US Supreme Court on 30 September 2026 allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, temporarily lifting a lower-court block while the justices deliberate on whether the administration's third-country removal policy is lawful. The stay will remain in effect until the court issues a final ruling, with arguments scheduled for its December session.

What the Court Decided

The majority granted the administration's request for a stay of a February ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that had suspended the policy and required migrants to receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before removal. The majority did not provide a written explanation for granting the stay.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, saying they would have denied the administration's request.

How the Policy Works

Under the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy, a person with a final removal order may be sent to a country not listed in the original deportation order, provided that government agrees to accept the individual. If no such assurance exists, the government says the migrant must be informed of the destination country and given at least 24 hours to express fear of persecution or torture. An immigration officer then determines whether the person is more likely than not to face such harm; those who do not meet that threshold can be deported.

Administration's Position

The Trump administration described third-country removals as 'an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.' Officials said the lower-court restrictions had forced the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 migrants with criminal convictions to three countries, causing additional costs and requiring renewed diplomatic engagement. The Justice Department argued that courts had exceeded their authority by imposing classwide relief and interfering with decisions governed by immigration and foreign-policy law.

Migrants' Lawyers Push Back

Lawyers representing the migrants argued the policy could send people to unfamiliar countries without a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate they face persecution, torture, or further deportation to a country from which the United States had already granted them protection. They accused the government of ignoring '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.'

Their filing cited an estimate — presented by the migrants' lawyers and not established by the Supreme Court order — that DHS deported more than 25,000 people to at least 28 third countries during 2025 and 2026. They further alleged that some deportees had faced prolonged detention, beatings, sexual assault, disappearance, and onward transfer to yet another nation.

What the Court Will Examine Next

During December arguments, the justices will weigh whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether classwide relief was appropriate, and whether the policy violates federal immigration law, constitutional due-process protections, or US obligations concerning torture. Critically, Tuesday's order applies only to individuals already subject to final removal orders — it does not alter the status of lawful permanent residents, students, workers, or other visa holders not in removal proceedings. A definitive ruling is expected later in the term.