The U.S. Supreme Court has granted the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) emergency request to stay a lower court order that required the government to provide advance notice and an opportunity to contest deportations to so-called “third countries”, nations other than a migrant’s country of origin or prior residence. The June 23 decision, issued over the dissent of the Court’s three liberal justices, allows the Trump administration to immediately resume expedited removals to countries such as South Sudan and Libya, even as legal challenges continue in the lower courts.

The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., centers on DHS’s recent policy shift to accelerate deportations of noncitizens to third countries when their home countries refuse to accept them. Federal law generally requires that removals be to a country with which the noncitizen has a meaningful connection, and international law, specifically, the Convention Against Torture, prohibits deporting people to places where they are likely to face torture or persecution.

Earlier this year, DHS issued internal guidance instructing officers to review all cases for potential third-country removal, regardless of whether the individual had lived in or had ties to the destination country. The policy drew immediate legal challenges after reports surfaced of migrants being deported without notice or a meaningful chance to contest their removal, sometimes to countries experiencing active conflict or severe instability.

In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction requiring DHS to provide written notice to individuals facing third-country removal, as well as at least 10 days to object and present claims of potential torture or persecution. The order also required that notices be provided in a language the recipient could understand and that, if a claim was denied, the individual would have 15 days to seek to reopen immigration proceedings.

The Trump administration argued that the lower court’s requirements were causing “chaos in the third country removal process,” making it nearly impossible to carry out deportations when home countries refused to accept individuals. The Solicitor General told the Supreme Court that the order interfered with delicate diplomatic efforts and usurped executive authority, especially in cases involving individuals convicted of serious crimes.

In the Supreme Court’s unsigned opinion, the majority did not provide a detailed explanation for its decision, a common practice in emergency “shadow docket” rulings.

The stay will remain in effect while the case is appealed to the First Circuit and, if necessary, until the Supreme Court itself decides whether to hear the case. If the Court declines review, the stay will automatically dissolve; if it grants review, the stay will last until the Court issues a final judgment.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a forceful dissent. The dissent accused the government of “openly flouting” court orders by deporting individuals without notice, sometimes within hours of informing them, and even lying to the courts about compliance. The dissent highlighted specific incidents, including:

• The removal of a gay man to Guatemala, where he faced likely torture, despite an immigration judge’s order to the contrary.
• The secretive transfer of migrants to Guantanamo Bay and subsequent deportation to countries like El Salvador and South Sudan, in violation of court orders.
• Near-removal of a group to Libya, which was only averted by last-minute court intervention; the planned deportation sparked political unrest and violence in Tripoli.

Sotomayor warned that the Supreme Court’s decision “threatens the rule of law to its core” by rewarding government misconduct and exposing migrants to the risk of torture or death without due process.

The Supreme Court’s order is a significant victory for the administration’s immigration enforcement agenda, allowing DHS to resume fast-track deportations to third countries with minimal procedural safeguards. However, the ruling does not resolve the underlying legal questions about the constitutionality and legality of the government’s policy. Those issues will continue to be litigated in the appeals court, and potentially return to the Supreme Court for full review.

Meanwhile, immigration attorneys and advocates warn that the decision leaves vulnerable migrants—many of whom have credible fears of torture or persecution—at risk of being sent to dangerous countries without any meaningful opportunity to object.