The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Thursday to resume deporting migrants to third countries where they have no ties. The Trump administration is seeking to overturn a recent order from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit that halted these flights. The appellate court's ruling required federal officials to provide migrants with notice and an opportunity to raise claims that they might be tortured before being sent to a nation other than their country of origin.
The legal dispute centers on "third-country removals," a practice the administration has utilized to deport individuals whose home countries refuse to accept them or who have limited legal protections against returning to their homelands. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower court's freeze has disrupted sensitive diplomatic arrangements and forced the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 people to three different countries. The administration contends that it only sends migrants to countries that have provided credible assurances to Secretary of State Marco Rubio that deportees will not be persecuted.
This is the second time the case has reached the Supreme Court. In June 2025, the court issued an unsigned order allowing the deportations to continue while the case proceeded, over a 19-page dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. However, following a final judgment from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston—which was upheld by the 1st Circuit last week—the flights were once again halted. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who oversees emergency matters for the 1st Circuit, has ordered the plaintiffs to respond to the administration's request by Monday afternoon.
The concrete day-to-day impact for a detainee is the difference between immediate removal and a mandatory 10-day notice period. Under the lower court's blocked order, migrants would have a "meaningful opportunity" to express fear of torture and 15 days to seek to reopen immigration proceedings if the government rejects their claims. Without these procedures, the administration may resume removals to third countries based on "blanket assurances" of safety from the receiving nations. The administration argues the current freeze causes "substantial logistical problems" and adds expense to Department of Homeland Security operations, while opponents argue the lack of notice violates constitutional due process.
The outcome of this case will set a precedent for how much authority the executive branch has to broker deportation agreements with foreign governments without judicial oversight of individual safety risks. It also affects U.S. diplomatic relations with dozens of countries in Africa and Latin America that have signed these removal agreements. A final decision from the Supreme Court on this emergency stay is expected after the Monday, September 28 deadline for plaintiff responses, which will determine if flights can resume immediately or must remain grounded pending further appeals.