Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Ruling on Third-Country Deportations
Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Ruling on Third-Country Deportations
On Monday, the Supreme Court issued a stay on a lower court ruling that impacted the deportation of individuals to countries other than their own. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy for the District of Massachusetts, mandated that individuals facing deportation to a third country be granted a “credible fear” interview in their native language and at least 15 days to challenge their deportation.
The case stemmed from a flight carrying several men from countries including Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Mexico. Initially destined for South Sudan, the flight was diverted to Djibouti to allow the men time to contest their deportation. The U.S. government argued these men were violent criminals convicted of crimes such as murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery, and therefore did not deserve to remain in the U.S. The government also stated that it had secured agreements with third countries to accept these individuals after their home countries refused.
Judge Murphy’s ruling was challenged by the U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer on May 27th. Sauer argued that the ruling was “wreaking havoc” on the third-country removal process, hindering the government’s efforts to deport individuals deemed undesirable. He described securing agreements with third countries as a “delicate diplomatic endeavor”.
The Supreme Court’s stay temporarily suspends Judge Murphy’s order pending further legal proceedings. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the stay. In their dissenting opinion, they expressed concern about the potential for individuals to face torture or unsafe conditions in countries like South Sudan, highlighting the government’s alleged disregard for the lower court’s order and the lack of sufficient notice provided to the deportees, in some cases less than 24 hours.
The dissenting justices emphasized the government’s obligation to comply with lower court orders, stating that “Even if the orders in question had been mistaken, the Government had a duty to obey them.” They characterized the government’s actions as “a gross abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion” and a threat to the rule of law.
Immigration lawyers representing the deported men argued that even criminals deserve due process and an opportunity to be heard before being sent to potentially dangerous locations. They contended that the short notice provided to the men, coupled with potential language barriers, severely limited their ability to contest their removal. They also suggested that the Trump administration’s process of removing people to third countries was “intentionally punitive.”
The core dispute centers on the amount of time migrants should have to challenge their deportation to a third country. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) maintains that this process takes “minutes,” while immigration lawyers argue that the limited timeframe prevents meaningful legal challenges. DHS policy requires notice of the destination country and “an opportunity for a prompt screening of any asserted fear of being tortured there.”
The Supreme Court’s stay does not represent a final decision on the merits of the case. It merely maintains the status quo while the lower courts continue to adjudicate the matter. The lawyers for the deported men have been given until a specified date to respond to the government’s appeal.
The strategy of relying on third countries to accept deportees is not new, but the Trump administration prioritized expanding this practice to expedite deportations from the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s statement during an April cabinet meeting, indicating a preference for deporting individuals to countries far from the U.S. border, was cited in court documents.
The Supreme Court’s action represents the latest instance of the court acting as the final arbiter in disputes related to President Trump’s immigration policies.
Disclaimer: This content is aggregated from public sources online. Please verify information independently. If you believe your rights have been infringed, contact us for removal.