Date: September 29, 2026
Reporter: Emilly Jordan
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their countries of origin, temporarily lifting a lower-court restriction that had required the government to provide migrants with an opportunity to raise concerns about persecution or other serious harm they could face in the destination country.
The justices granted the Justice Department’s request to put on hold a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, who had found the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country deportation policy unlawful. The administration is appealing that ruling, and the Supreme Court is expected to consider the broader legal dispute.
The Supreme Court’s action means the policy can operate while the litigation continues. The court did not issue a final ruling determining whether the policy ultimately complies with U.S. immigration law and constitutional due-process requirements. A major argument before the court is expected during its term beginning October 5, with the case scheduled for further consideration later this year.
Under the policy, migrants who cannot be returned to the countries named in their deportation orders can be sent to so-called third countries. The administration has used the policy as part of its broader immigration enforcement programme since 2025.
More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, according to a tally by human rights groups cited by Reuters. Most of those deportations have involved Mexico, while other destinations have included South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic.
The policy is particularly significant for migrants who have legal protection against being returned to their home countries because they could face persecution or torture there. In some cases, the migrants cannot be returned because their home governments refuse to accept them.
Under the administration’s policy, migrants being sent to countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurances that they will not be persecuted or tortured can be removed without additional notice. When a destination country has not provided such assurances, U.S. authorities can notify the migrant of the destination and assess the risk of persecution or torture if the person raises such a concern.
Immigrant-rights groups challenged the policy in court, arguing that migrants should receive notice and an opportunity to explain the potential dangers they face before being transferred to another country.
In February, Judge Murphy ruled that the policy violated immigration-law procedures and due-process protections under the Fifth Amendment. A federal appeals court in Boston upheld most of Murphy’s ruling on September 18, finding that migrants were not receiving sufficient notice and an opportunity to raise fears about persecution or torture in the countries to which they could be deported.
The Justice Department argued before the Supreme Court that third-country deportations are an important tool for removing migrants who cannot otherwise be deported, including some people convicted of serious crimes. The administration has said that the lower-court restrictions created logistical difficulties for deportation operations, including cancelled flights and additional expenses.
The challengers, however, argue that the policy also affects migrants who have no criminal history and who may face serious danger in countries with which they have no meaningful connection.
Plaintiffs have alleged that some migrants sent to third countries were subsequently transferred to their countries of origin despite having previously received protection from removal there. They have also alleged cases involving beatings, sexual assault, detention and disappearances. Those allegations are part of the ongoing litigation and have not resulted in a general judicial finding that every deportation under the policy involved such treatment.
The case began in 2025 after the Department of Homeland Security expanded the use of third-country deportations for migrants whose countries of origin would not accept them or to whom removal to their home countries was legally restricted.
The Supreme Court has previously intervened in the dispute. Earlier rulings allowed the administration to continue certain third-country removals while the legal challenge proceeded and later lifted restrictions imposed by Judge Murphy intended to protect a group of migrants from being sent to South Sudan.
South Sudan has been among the countries used for the policy despite a U.S. State Department warning advising Americans against travel there because of risks including crime, kidnapping and armed conflict. Other African countries used for third-country deportations have included Uganda, Equatorial Guinea and Liberia.
More than a dozen United Nations human-rights experts separately urged the U.S. government to halt policies that they said were placing migrants at increased risk of persecution, torture and other abuses. They identified children, women, people with disabilities, trafficking victims, LGBT people, human-rights defenders and stateless people among those they considered particularly vulnerable.
The Supreme Court’s decision does not resolve the underlying dispute over the legality of the third-country deportation policy. For now, it allows the Trump administration to restart the removals while the federal courts continue considering whether migrants must receive additional notice and an opportunity to raise protection claims before being sent to countries other than their own.