In a significant legal battle, immigrants are urging the Supreme Court to uphold a previous ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, which prevents the Trump administration from deporting them to countries not designated in their removal orders. The ruling requires the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to provide proper procedures before pursuing what is termed as “third-country removals.” This process involves sending noncitizens to nations other than their country of origin if there is fear of persecution or torture upon return.
The Trump administration’s continued efforts to implement these removals have led to several appeals at the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling impedes the removal of what it calls “some of the worst criminal aliens.” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer has contested this ruling, emphasizing logistical challenges and potential diplomatic issues with current removal operations. Meanwhile, the immigrants, represented by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, maintain that the decision merely ensures that such deportations are carried out lawfully, with proper notice and an opportunity for individuals to contest these moves if they fear persecution.
This clash over third-country removals is rooted in an executive order from January 2025 when President Trump directed DHS to take “appropriate actions” to deport noncitizens under existing removal orders. Following this directive, DHS issued guidance to ensure noncitizens were not sent to countries where they might face torture without due process, a stance upheld by Judge Murphy.
Murphy’s final judgment demanded that immigrants receive meaningful notice and the chance to oppose removal to third-party countries where they could face harm. This stance was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit in September 2026, further intensifying the conflict between the rulings and the administration’s plans.
As the immigrants’ brief argued, many have suffered greatly from deportation without adequate notice, leading to detentions, abuse, and being sent back to nations from which they had previously sought asylum. They assert that the government can mitigate these challenges by providing necessary notice and opportunities for immigrants to present their claims, a legal requirement according to the current judicial interpretation.
For further reading, please visit SCOTUSblog.