The Supreme Court on Tuesday let the Trump administration resume, for now, one of the most aggressive tools in its deportation arsenal: shipping migrants to countries that appear nowhere on their original removal orders. The unsigned order lifts a First Circuit block from just 11 days earlier and sets up a full Supreme Court showdown over the policy's legality this winter.

The "third-country" removal program, launched by executive order in January 2025, lets the Department of Homeland Security deport noncitizens to nations they have no ties to whatsoever — recent destinations have included South Sudan, Rwanda and Eswatini — when their home countries won't take them back. DHS deported roughly 15,000 people this way in 2025 alone.

The case traces back to March 2025, when four noncitizens sued in federal court in Massachusetts, arguing they were being shipped off with no real chance to explain why they feared for their lives in a country they'd never set foot in. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy agreed, and in the district court's February ruling, ordered that immigrants get "meaningful notice" and a real opportunity to contest removal to any specific third country. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld that protection on September 18.

Dissent warns of "immediate risk"

The Supreme Court's stay wipes that protection out while the case proceeds. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson were the three dissenting justices, saying they would have denied the administration's request outright.

"People facing removal to third countries are once again at immediate risk of being sent to places where they have no meaningful opportunity to seek protection," said Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

DHS General Counsel James Percival took a victory lap, calling it "a bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike," and adding, "It's not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home" — a reference to the administration's cash incentive for voluntary self-deportation.

The Solicitor General's office had told the justices the lower court's block created "substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations" and stripped the government of "an essential tool to remove certain aliens." One of the original plaintiffs, identified in filings only as D.V.D., is a Cuban national with severe mental illness — a detail his lawyers say illustrates exactly the kind of case the notice requirement was meant to protect.

The fight is far from over. The Court agreed to hear full oral arguments in December, when the justices will weigh three questions: whether the Massachusetts district court even had jurisdiction to hear the case, whether it could rule for the entire class of affected migrants rather than just the named plaintiffs, and — the big one — whether third-country removals without meaningful notice violate due process at all. A final ruling isn't expected until sometime in 2027, meaning the policy could run unchecked through the heart of the 2026 midterm season.