Supreme Court sides with Trump admin. on third-country deportations


This recording was made using enhanced software.

Summary

Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to pause a lower court’s injunction, allowing the Trump administration to continue deporting migrants to countries other than their homelands.

Third-country deportations

The Trump administration has deported migrants to third countries, after the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance in February regarding deportees who feared torture or personal harm in their home country.

Legal and humanitarian concerns

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had previously ruled that migrants should have at least 10 days to contest their deportations and noted that the Trump administration had violated this order in at least one instance.


Full story

In a win for the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, June 23, that deporting migrants to countries other than their own can continue. It comes after a judge had previously ruled that migrants be given the chance to contest their removals to other countries.

SCOTUS ruling

The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of pausing that judge’s ruling, with the three liberal justices –– Sonia Sotomayor, Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan –– all dissenting.

“The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,” Justice Sotomayor said in her dissent.

The majority did not provide an explanation for their decision, a common practice in emergency appeals.

Their decision removes Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s injunction, allowing migrants to seek relief from being flown to third countries. The Trump administration will now be able to quickly resume those deportations.

The Supreme Court became involved in this case in May when the Trump administration requested that it intervene. The administration said Murphy’s injunction prevented possibly thousands of deportations.

In his ruling, Murphy clarified that migrants should have at least 10 days to bring a claim. Murphy has also claimed the Trump administration violated his order by deporting people to South Sudan.

Third-country deportations

The Trump administration has deported people to countries including El Salvador, Libya and South Sudan –– the latter of which is in the midst of a civil war.

CBS News reports administration officials have also reached out to countries like Angola and Equatorial Guinea about accepting migrants who are not their citizens.

This started in February when the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidance to immigration authorities, telling them to deport migrants to third countries if the migrants feared being tortured in their home countries.

One month later, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem issued further guidance, saying migrants can be sent to a third country if that country has provided reassurances that the deported persons will not be tortured or prosecuted.

Another part of the reason the Trump administration began bringing in third countries is that some of the countries where migrants originally came from refused to accept repatriation flights.

For instance, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro stopped flights in March after the U.S. Treasury Department suspended Chevron’s permission to export oil from the country. The two sides have since reached a deal, and flights have resumed.

Deportation debate

Despite the guidance from DHS about migrants not being persecuted or tortured in third countries, hundreds of migrants ended up in CECOT, a notorious mega-prison in El Salvador. President Nayib Bukele agreed to house 300 immigrants per year in his country’s prison at a cost of $6 million.

The deportations began after the president invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, which allows the government to deport, detain or relocate people during times of war or a national emergency.

The Trump administration claimed many of those sent to CECOT were part of a Venezuelan gang called Tren de Aragua. However, in most cases, they did not identify the people who were deported or provide evidence that they were part of the gang.

Tags: , , , ,

Straight Arrow
Fear no fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Why this story matters

The Supreme Court's decision to allow continued deportation of migrants to third countries affects both U.S. immigration policy and the legal rights of migrants contesting removal.

Supreme Court ruling

The Court's order enables the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own despite lower court concerns over due process.

Third-country deportations

Sending migrants to countries including El Salvador, Libya and South Sudan raises questions about their safety and the broader implications of U.S. immigration policy.

Legal and human rights concerns

Justice Sotomayor and others have voiced concerns that the policy may violate migrants' rights to contest deportation, underscoring ongoing legal debates around due process and protection from persecution.

Get the big picture

Synthesized coverage insights across 61 media outlets

Context corner

Deporting non-citizens to third countries has long been contentious in U.S. immigration policy. The practice hinges on international treaties such as the Convention Against Torture and longstanding U.S. statutes governing removal. The political climate, especially surrounding mass deportation policies, has intensified since increased migration and prior court injunctions on executive authority.

Debunking

There are conflicting claims about the criminal backgrounds of the migrants affected. While the administration characterized most as "the worst of the worst," immigrant advocates and legal filings indicate that a significant portion have no serious criminal records, and even those with convictions may face persecution or torture if deported, challenging the administration's narrative.

Diverging views

Left-leaning articles emphasize due process rights, potential humanitarian harm, and judicial checks on executive authority, highlighting opinions from dissenting Supreme Court justices. Right-leaning articles focus on public safety, enforcement of immigration law, and the challenges of removing convicted criminals. Right sources frame the decision as a necessary legal and security measure, while left sources underline risks to migrants and procedural abuses.

Straight Arrow
Fear no fact.

Don't just take our word for it.


Certified balanced reporting

According to media bias experts at AllSides

AllSides Certified Balanced May 2025

Transparent and credible

Awarded a perfect reliability rating from NewsGuard

100/100

Welcome back to trustworthy journalism.

Find out more

Media landscape

Click on bars to see headlines

81 total sources

Key points from the Left

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Key points from the Center

No summary available because of a lack of coverage.

Report an issue with this summary

Other (sources without bias rating):

Powered by Ground News™

Timeline

Timeline