Reported by Weng Patrick Atokor l Journalist at Weng Global
The US Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own while the court considers a legal challenge to the policy.
In an order issued on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed a February ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that had found the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal policy unlawful.
The court also agreed to hear the government’s appeal, setting the case for arguments during its December 2026 session. The justices have not yet issued a final ruling on whether the policy itself complies with US immigration law and constitutional due-process protections.
The decision means the Trump administration can, for the time being, continue sending migrants with final deportation orders to countries where they are not citizens and may have no previous connection.
The Supreme Court’s order specifically stays the February 25 judgment of US District Judge Brian Murphy, whose ruling had required migrants to receive meaningful notice and an opportunity to raise concerns about potential persecution or torture before being removed to a third country.
Supreme Court Takes Up Broader Legal Dispute
The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., has developed into a major legal dispute over the limits of the US government’s authority to remove migrants to countries other than those named in their deportation orders.
The Supreme Court’s docket shows that the government filed an emergency application for a stay on September 24 after the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allowed the lower-court restrictions to take effect.
After receiving responses from the migrants challenging the policy and other filings, the Supreme Court referred the application to the full court on September 29 and granted the stay. It simultaneously treated the government’s application as a petition for Supreme Court review and granted that petition.
The justices directed the parties to address several questions, including whether the district court had jurisdiction over the migrants’ claims, whether it had authority to issue classwide relief and whether the third-country removal guidance violates federal immigration law, the US Constitution’s Due Process Clause or protections under the Convention Against Torture and its implementing regulations.
The court ordered that the case be prepared for argument in December 2026.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have denied the administration’s request to stay the lower-court ruling. The apparent 6-3 division was also reported by The Associated Press.
What Is a Third-Country Deportation?
A third-country deportation occurs when the United States removes a migrant to a country other than the person’s country of nationality.
The Trump administration has used the policy for migrants who have final removal orders but cannot be immediately returned to their home countries.
According to the administration, some migrants cannot be returned to their countries because those governments will not accept them or because other circumstances prevent their removal. US officials have argued that third-country agreements provide another mechanism for carrying out final deportation orders.
The administration has maintained that governments receiving deportees provide assurances that the migrants will not be persecuted or tortured.
The policy has involved countries across several regions, including nations in Africa and Latin America.
Reuters reported that more than 25,000 migrants had been deported to 29 countries under the policy, based on a tally by human rights groups. The vast majority had been sent to Mexico.
Lower Courts Raised Due-Process Concerns
The Supreme Court’s latest order follows months of litigation over whether migrants receive sufficient procedural protection before being placed on flights to unfamiliar countries.
Judge Brian Murphy of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts ruled in February that the policy violated immigration-law procedures and due-process protections.
His judgment declared that members of the affected class had a right to meaningful notice before removal to a third country and a meaningful opportunity to raise country-specific claims against removal. The judge also set aside the Department of Homeland Security’s policy.
The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit later upheld most of Murphy’s ruling.
Reuters reported that the appeals court’s September 18 decision found that migrants had to be given an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture in the destination country.
The legal dispute therefore does not simply concern whether the United States can ever deport someone to a third country. A central question is what procedural protections must be provided before that removal takes place.
Administration Defends Policy as Immigration Tool
The Trump administration has described third-country removals as an important part of its immigration enforcement strategy.
In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department described third-country removals as an essential tool for removing certain migrants, including people with criminal convictions.
Department of Homeland Security General Counsel James Percival welcomed the Supreme Court’s decision.
Attorney General Todd Blanche has also defended the policy, describing it as a lawful and important immigration-enforcement mechanism.
The administration has argued that lower-court restrictions could disrupt diplomatic arrangements with countries that have agreed to receive deportees.
The issue became particularly urgent in September after the administration said a lower-court order had forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people who were scheduled to be sent to three countries.
The Supreme Court’s stay now allows the administration to resume the removals while the broader legal dispute proceeds.
Migrant Advocates Raise Safety Concerns
Lawyers representing migrants have argued that rapid third-country removals can expose people to serious danger without giving them enough opportunity to explain why they fear the destination country.
Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents migrants in the case, said the Supreme Court’s order allows the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they could face persecution or torture.
She also stressed that Tuesday’s decision did not determine whether the government’s policy is ultimately lawful. The Supreme Court is expected to consider that question when it hears the case.
Reuters reported that lawyers for migrants have alleged cases involving detention, physical abuse, sexual assault and other serious harm after some deportations.
Those allegations remain part of the broader litigation and should not be treated as findings that apply to every third-country deportation.
African Countries Among Deportation Destinations
The dispute has particular relevance for Africa because several African countries have been used as destinations for migrants removed from the United States.
Reuters reported that third-country deportations have included destinations such as South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic.
South Sudan has been among the most closely scrutinised destinations because of its security and humanitarian situation.
The US State Department advises Americans against travelling to South Sudan because of risks including crime, kidnapping and armed conflict, according to Reuters.
Other African countries have also entered arrangements with the United States to receive people who are not their nationals.
The agreements have raised questions about the responsibilities of receiving governments, the treatment of deportees and the safeguards applied before migrants are transferred.
For African governments, such arrangements can also involve diplomatic, financial and humanitarian considerations. However, the precise terms of individual agreements vary, and claims about payments or other incentives should be assessed separately for each country.
UN Experts Raise Human Rights Concerns
The controversy has also attracted international human-rights scrutiny.
UN human-rights experts have called for the United States to halt deportations to third countries because of concerns that people transferred to countries with which they have no connection could face torture, persecution or other rights violations.
Reuters reported that UN experts said vulnerable groups, including children and trafficking victims, could face particularly serious risks under the policy.
The US government, however, has defended the arrangements and maintained that its deportation procedures are lawful.
The competing positions underscore the central issue now before the Supreme Court: whether the government’s procedures provide adequate protection while allowing immigration authorities to carry out removal orders efficiently.
What the Supreme Court Decision Means Now
Tuesday’s decision does not represent the final resolution of the dispute.
Instead, the Supreme Court has temporarily suspended the lower-court judgment while it considers the government’s appeal.
That distinction is important.
The Court has not ruled that the third-country deportation policy is ultimately lawful. It has allowed the policy to operate while the justices examine the legal questions raised by the case.
The Supreme Court has scheduled the case for argument in December 2026.
Until the court reaches its final judgment, the Trump administration can proceed under the policy as permitted by the September 29 order.
The eventual ruling could determine what notice and procedural protections migrants must receive before being sent to countries other than their own.
Why the Case Matters
The case carries implications beyond the individual migrants involved.
For the Trump administration, third-country deportations are part of a broader immigration-enforcement programme aimed at increasing the speed and scale of removals.
For migrants and their lawyers, the case concerns whether people facing removal have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution, torture or other dangers in the country where they may be sent.
For countries accepting deportees, the arrangements raise questions about international cooperation, the treatment of foreign nationals and the responsibilities that accompany agreements with the United States.
The case also presents a significant legal question about the relationship between executive immigration authority and judicial review.
The Supreme Court has previously intervened in disputes involving the Trump administration’s third-country removal policy. Reuters reported that the justices had earlier allowed some deportation flights to proceed while litigation continued.
The September 29 order therefore continues a dispute that has already produced several emergency applications and lower-court rulings.
What Happens Next
The immediate next step is the Supreme Court’s consideration of the case during its December 2026 argument session.
The parties will brief and argue the questions identified by the Court, including whether the lower court had jurisdiction, whether it had authority to provide classwide relief and whether the government’s third-country removal policy complies with federal immigration law, due process and protections against torture.
The stay will remain in effect until the Supreme Court sends down its judgment.
For now, US immigration authorities can resume third-country removals under the policy, while migrants challenging the practice continue their legal efforts before the Supreme Court.
The eventual ruling will determine whether the government’s current approach can remain in place and what procedural safeguards, if any, must accompany third-country deportations.
Weng Global – Stories beyond borders
Sources
- U.S. Supreme Court, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26A406 / No. 26-426.
- Reuters, “Supreme Court lets Trump resume deporting migrants to countries not their own,” September 29, 2026.
- Associated Press, “Supreme Court lets quick deportations to third countries resume for now while it weighs Trump policy,” September 29, 2026.
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, February 25, 2026 judgment in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
