The Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to continue deporting noncitizens to nations with which they share no prior ties, overriding a federal district court ruling that found the practice unlawful. The decision allows the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with third-country removals while the high court prepares to hear arguments on the merits of the case in December.
The Legal Battle Over Removal Destinations
The controversy centers on the executive branch’s authority to send immigrants to countries where they may not speak the language and could face severe harm, including torture or death. Federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E), generally restricts deportation destinations to a noncitizen’s country of admission, citizenship, or birth. Removal to another accepting nation is permitted only if deportation to those specified countries is deemed impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.
In spring 2025, a federal district court in Boston issued a preliminary injunction halting deportations to countries without prior contact. The case involved individuals from Venezuela and Honduras being sent to Guatemala and South Sudan. Federal Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled that sending people from Venezuela and Honduras to South Sudan violated federal law because they had no established connections there.
Judge Murphy’s order also required the government to provide written notice and a meaningful opportunity for noncitizens to raise fears of return under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The United States Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit upheld this preliminary injunction, maintaining the block on such removals.
Supreme Court Intervention
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. without issuing a majority opinion or explanation. This action effectively allowed the administration to resume third-country removals while the legal challenge proceeded.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor highlighted specific cases where individuals were deported despite judicial findings of likely torture. She noted that one plaintiff was wrongfully sent to Guatemala after an Immigration Judge determined he faced probable torture. Additionally, six other individuals were deported to South Sudan in violation of the court order, a nation the State Department considers unsafe for all but critical personnel.
Sotomayor argued that both international law and domestic statutes prohibit deporting noncitizens to countries where they are likely to be tortured or killed without proper notice. She cited the Fifth Amendment, immigration law, federal regulations, and Supreme Court precedent as supporting protections against such removals.
Clarification and Continued Enforcement
The legal dispute continued when the United States filed a motion for clarification in the Supreme Court regarding the scope of the stay. On July 3, the high court granted the motion, ruling that the district court’s remedial order could not enforce an injunction rendered unenforceable by the stay.
Justice Kagan wrote a concurrence disagreeing with the earlier ruling but accepting that the district court lacked authority to enforce its order limiting third-country removals. Sotomayor and Jackson dissented from this July 3 order, reiterating their position that domestic and international law forbid deportations to dangerous destinations without due process.
Despite these objections, the six individuals mentioned in Sotomayor’s dissent were deported to South Sudan. A district court intervention had previously prevented unlawful removals to Libya, but the Supreme Court’s actions have cleared the path for continued third-country deportations until a final decision is reached months later.
National Implications
This development marks a significant shift in immigration enforcement policy. By allowing the administration to bypass traditional deportation destinations, the Supreme Court has expanded executive power over border security and removal procedures. The case will be heard in December, offering a final opportunity for the justices to address the constitutional and statutory limits of third-country removals.
The outcome could set a precedent for how future administrations handle immigration enforcement, particularly regarding the balance between national security interests and individual rights under international treaties like the Convention Against Torture. For now, the Trump administration retains the authority to deport noncitizens to countries with no prior connection, challenging longstanding legal norms and raising concerns about due process protections.