Supreme Court Lets DHS Resume Third-Country Deportations During Appeal, Sets December Argument; Three Justices Note Dissent
The Sept. 29 order pauses a Boston judge's ruling that required notice and a chance to raise fear of torture before removal to a third country; the justices will decide the policy's legality after arguments in December.
Two Numbers, One Policy
On Tuesday, the Supreme Court let the Trump administration go back to deporting some migrants to countries that are not their own[1][2]. The order is temporary. It pauses a ruling by a federal judge in Boston, and it sets up a full hearing in December[1][11].
Here is the tension sitting inside that pause. Human-rights groups tallying the policy's use since 2025 count more than 25,000 people sent to 29 different countries[2]. The vast majority of those went to Mexico[2]. But the destinations getting attention right now are the rare ones: South Sudan, Eswatini, Rwanda[5][12]. Both facts are true. They just point a reader in very different directions.
That gap between the typical case and the dramatic one is where this story lives. The legal fight isn't about whether the government can send people to third countries at all — lower courts never said it couldn't[5]. It's about how much warning someone gets, and how real a chance they have, to say "I could be tortured there" before the flight leaves[9][3].
Why Some Deportees Have Nowhere to Go
Start with the practical problem the government is trying to solve. Some countries simply refuse to take back their own citizens[6][14]. When that happens, a person can have a final deportation order and still have nowhere to be sent — their home country has closed the door.
Third-country removal is the workaround: find another nation willing to accept them. But that depends on diplomatic deals, and those deals are fragile. The administration says that when courts impose new notice requirements, they don't just slow things down — they can force "fresh diplomatic discussions with each destination" and even cancel flights that were already arranged[3][6].
Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Court that reinstating the lower court's order caused real costs: canceled flights, added expense, and "potential diplomatic issues"[6]. The government also argues this policy is how it removes "some of the worst criminal aliens" — people whose home countries won't take them back and who a receiving country would otherwise never see[14].
The Right That Only Works With Enough Warning
Now the other side of the mechanism. U.S. law, carrying out the international Convention Against Torture, forbids sending anyone to a country where they're likely to be tortured. That protection is only real if the person finds out where they're being sent in time to object[9][1]. Notice isn't a formality here — it's the entire hinge the right turns on.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled in February 2026 that migrants must get "meaningful notice" and a "meaningful opportunity" to raise a fear claim before removal to a third country[9][3]. The First Circuit Court of Appeals largely agreed with him on September 18, 2026, and lifted its own earlier hold on his ruling[8][3].
Lawyers for the migrants, led by Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, describe what happens without that step. People removed without a real chance to object have faced "prolonged and arbitrary detention, beatings and sexual assault, disappearance, and chain refoulement to countries from which the United States had already granted them protection," Realmuto told the Court[7]. "Chain refoulement" means a third country turns around and sends the person on to the very place a U.S. judge had already ruled unsafe for them.
What the Court Actually Did — and Didn't Do
The order itself is narrower than either side's talking points suggest. The Court stayed Murphy's February judgment, meaning it's on hold[1]. It also treated the government's emergency request as a full petition for review and agreed to hear the case[1]. Argument is set for December 2026, with a decision expected by around July 2027[1][4][14].
The Court framed four questions it will answer: whether the district court even had jurisdiction, whether a specific immigration statute barred Murphy from issuing relief for an entire group of people at once, whether the policy itself is legal, and any other questions the government raises[1].
That statute — 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) — is worth pausing on, because it's doing real work here. Congress wrote it to stop individual district judges from blocking immigration enforcement nationwide through one class-action ruling; the law is meant to keep those fights to individual cases[1]. The administration reads it as barring exactly what Murphy did. The migrants' lawyers read it more narrowly, arguing it doesn't cover a ruling that simply declares an agency policy unlawful[1]. How the Court answers that question will shape immigration litigation well beyond this one case.
Three justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — noted they would have denied the stay and kept Murphy's ruling in place[2][11]. That's notable for what it lacks: no written opinion, no explanation[2][11]. A widely circulated dissent from Sotomayor does exist, but it's from a different, earlier stage of this same case in June 2025 — not from Tuesday's order[2][18].
Removals Can Resume Before the Case Is Decided
The practical result is that deportations under this policy can start again right now, while the underlying legality question stays unresolved until next summer[11]. Anyone removed in the meantime doesn't get an automatic do-over if the policy is eventually struck down[3][7].
Coverage of the order split along familiar lines. Fox News and other right-leaning outlets led with the government's account of canceled flights and diplomatic strain, using language like "illegal aliens"; The Federalist's headline described the Court as having "overturned" a block on the policy, though a stay isn't a final ruling on the merits[5][15]. Breitbart's framing borrowed the term "safe third country," which actually names a separate, different immigration program — using it here implies the destinations are already settled as safe, which is precisely what's being litigated[16].
CNN's headline called the deportations "controversial" and emphasized that migrants are being sent to countries they have "no connection to," which is the migrants' own framing of the harm[13]. MS NOW described the three dissenting justices as a "Democratic dissent" — a party label that doesn't really apply to sitting justices — and said the Court "backs Trump," language that gets ahead of a merits ruling that hasn't happened yet[14]. Al Jazeera's report stayed closer to neutral, naming the African destinations and citing the State Department's own travel warning against South Sudan[12]. The Associated Press, for its part, was careful to mark the order as temporary and to note that the three justices "did not write a dissent"[2].
That underlying tension — the majority of removals going somewhere unremarkable, the coverage built around the places that aren't — will still be there in December, when the justices finally take up the question they've so far only paused.
Summary
On Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court let the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) resume deporting some migrants to 'third countries.' These are countries that are not the migrant's homeland and are not named in their deportation order[1][2]. The order pauses a February 2026 ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston. His ruling threw out the policy[9]. The First Circuit appeals court had largely upheld it on Sept. 18[8][3]. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they would have refused the government's request. That makes the count 6-3. But none of the three wrote a dissent[2][11].
The Court also agreed to decide the case itself. It will hear arguments in December, and a final ruling is expected by the end of the term, around July 2027[1][4][14]. Until then, the pause stays in place[11]. This is the third time the justices have sided with the administration against Judge Murphy's orders in this case[10]. A tally by the nonprofits Refugees International and Human Rights First, reported by the AP, found DHS has sent more than 25,000 migrants to 29 countries under the policy since it began in 2025, with the vast majority going to Mexico[2].
The core dispute is narrow but high-stakes. It is not whether the U.S. may deport people to third countries at all. Lower courts did not ban that[5]. The fight is over how much warning a person must get, and how real a chance they must have, to say they fear torture or persecution in the new country before the plane leaves[9][3]. The government argues that these court-ordered steps canceled flights, forced new talks with each receiving country, and blocked the removal of 'dangerous criminals'[6]. The immigrants' lawyers argue that people removed without that chance have faced 'beatings and sexual assault, disappearance,' and onward deportation to countries the U.S. had already protected them from[7].
The Event
On Sept. 29, 2026, the Supreme Court issued an order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (No. 26-426). It paused Judge Brian Murphy's ruling against DHS's third-country removal guidance, treated the government's emergency application as a petition for review, and granted it[1]. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson noted they would have denied the stay, without a written opinion[2][11]. The Court told the clerk to set a briefing schedule so the case can be argued in December[1][11].
Undisputed Facts
- In February 2026, Judge Brian Murphy entered a final judgment that set aside DHS's third-country removal policy. He ruled that migrants must get 'meaningful notice' and a 'meaningful opportunity' to claim they fear persecution or torture in the new country[9][3].
- On Sept. 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld Murphy's ruling. It also lifted a March 16, 2026 order that had kept his ruling on hold during the appeal[8][3].
- On Sept. 29, 2026, the Supreme Court stayed Murphy's ruling, granted review, and set argument for December. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson noted they would have denied the stay[1][11].
- The Court will consider four questions: whether the district court had jurisdiction; whether 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) allowed class-wide relief; whether the policy breaks immigration law, the Due Process Clause, or the law carrying out the Convention Against Torture; and any other questions the government raises[1].
- This is the third time the justices have granted the administration's requests against Judge Murphy's orders in this case. The first came on June 23, 2025[10][17].
- The lower courts did not ban third-country removals outright. They required procedures that let migrants raise fear-based claims about the destination country[5].
- Destinations under the policy have included South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda, among others[5][12].
- A tally by the nonprofits Refugees International and Human Rights First, reported by the AP, found more than 25,000 migrants have been sent to 29 countries under the policy since it began in 2025, with the vast majority sent to Mexico[2].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Home countries that refuse returns
- Some countries will not take back their own citizens. That leaves people with final deportation orders who cannot be sent home. A third country is the government's workaround, and it depends on deals with receiving governments. That is why the administration says new notice rules force 'fresh diplomatic discussions'[6][14].
- The torture-protection bar
- U.S. law carrying out the Convention Against Torture forbids sending anyone to a country where they are likely to be tortured. The protection only works if the person learns where they are going in time to object. So the amount of notice decides whether the right can be used at all[9][1].
- Limits on lower courts (§1252(f)(1))
- Congress wrote 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1) to stop lower courts from blocking the operation of certain immigration laws for whole groups at once. Individual cases are allowed. The government reads it to bar Murphy's class-wide relief. The immigrants read it more narrowly, as not covering declaratory judgments or setting aside an unlawful agency policy. The Court will decide which reading is right, and the answer reaches beyond this case[1].
Material realityRemovals to third countries can resume now. Under the order, the pause lasts until the Court issues its final decision[11]. A tally by the nonprofits Refugees International and Human Rights First, cited by the AP, found more than 25,000 people had been sent to 29 third countries since the policy began in 2025, with the vast majority going to Mexico[2]. Other destinations have included South Sudan, Eswatini and Rwanda[5][12]. People removed before the Court rules in 2027 will not automatically return if the policy is later struck down[3][7].
Narrative as a weaponThe administration frames the case around criminals, diplomacy and canceled flights. It wants readers to see the lower court as micromanaging foreign policy[6][14]. The immigrants' lawyers and left-leaning outlets frame it around individual harm and the lack of notice. They want readers to see the policy as deporting people with no hearing at all[7][13][19]. Both sides blur the fact that the order is temporary. Right-leaning outlets call it an overturn or a 'safe third country' program[15][16]. Some left-leaning outlets call it backing Trump over a 'Democratic' dissent[14]. The assigned headline's phrase 'without due process' is the lower court's conclusion. That conclusion is exactly what the Supreme Court will now decide. Readers should also know that some online summaries have attached Justice Sotomayor's June 2025 written dissent to this order. This time the three justices wrote nothing[2][18]. Coverage emphasizing dramatic destinations like South Sudan can also obscure that the vast majority of the 25,000+ third-country removals to date have gone to Mexico[2].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asSome deportees' home countries refuse to take them back. The administration argues that third-country removal is then 'an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens'[14]. It says the lower court's steps did real harm. Sauer wrote that reinstating Murphy's order caused 'the cancellation of flights,' added expense and 'potential diplomatic issues'[6]. He argued the rules forced 'fresh diplomatic discussions with each destination'[3][6]. The administration also argues that Congress, through 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1), limited lower courts' power to block immigration enforcement for whole classes of people at once. On this view, a single district judge should not be setting nationwide deportation procedure[1].
WhyTo keep a removal channel that works even when home countries refuse returns. It also wants to protect the promises it has negotiated with receiving countries, and to win a ruling that narrows lower courts' class-wide power over immigration[6][14].
Impact on themRemoval operations can resume at once. A win in December would lock in the policy and could limit district-court challenges to other immigration programs. A loss would require new notice procedures and possibly renegotiated agreements[3][6].
Frames it asTheir case is not that the U.S. can never deport anyone to a third country. It is that nobody should be sent somewhere they could be tortured without first being told where they are going and given a real chance to object[9]. That is the promise of the Due Process Clause and of the U.S. law carrying out the Convention Against Torture. Lawyer Trina Realmuto told the Court that people removed without that chance 'have faced prolonged and arbitrary detention, beatings and sexual assault, disappearance, and chain refoulement to countries from which the United States had already granted them protection'[7]. 'Chain refoulement' means a third country sends the person on to the very country a U.S. judge had said was unsafe for them.
WhyTo stop removals while the case is pending and to win a lasting rule requiring notice and a fear screening before any third-country removal[7][9].
Impact on themClass members can now be removed before the December argument. For some, the Supreme Court's final ruling may come after they have already been sent away[2][7].
Frames it asMurphy found that the policy violated migrants' right to 'meaningful notice' and a 'meaningful opportunity' to raise fears of harm[9]. The First Circuit largely agreed. It then let his ruling take effect again by lifting its own March hold[8][3].
WhyTo enforce what they read as legal limits on removal procedure, and to keep their power to give class-wide relief[8].
Impact on themMurphy's judgment is on hold again. The Supreme Court's question on §1252(f)(1) could narrow what lower courts may do in future immigration class actions[1].
Frames it asThe six-justice majority wrote no explanation. The order's effect is to keep the government's policy running while the Court decides the case on full briefing[1]. The three dissenting justices noted only that they would deny the stay[2]. In June 2025, at an earlier stage of the case, Justice Sotomayor wrote a long dissent. She said the government acted as if it were 'unconstrained by law'[18][17]. That dissent belongs to the 2025 order, not this one.
WhyTo settle a repeated emergency-docket fight with a full ruling on the merits[3].
Impact on themThe Court's decision, expected by about July 2027, will set the national rule[14].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.6
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center (wire) | 2 | Supreme Court allows third-country deportations to resume for now | 'For now' marks the order as temporary. It gives the specific 25,000 figure and notes the liberal justices 'did not write a dissent.' The phrase 'centerpiece of … mass deportation agenda' carries mild framing. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 3 | US Supreme Court allows Trump to continue third-country deportations | The headline is neutral. The body picks the State Department's South Sudan travel warning and the nationalities of the men sent there. That puts the African destinations up front. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 4 | Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue third-country deportations | The headline is neutral. The body uses 'illegal aliens' and 'immigration crackdown' and leads with the government's diplomatic and logistics complaints. It correctly notes that lower courts did not ban the removals outright. |
| CNN | U.S. center-left | 5 | Supreme Court allows Trump to restart controversial deportations to third countries that migrants have no connection to | The headline itself calls the policy 'controversial' and stresses the migrants' lack of 'connection' to the destinations, which is the plaintiffs' framing. It leaves out why the government says home countries won't take them. |
| The Federalist | U.S. right | 6 | SCOTUS Greenlights Trump's Third-Country Deportations (URL: 'scotus-overturns-blockade') | 'Overturns blockade' calls a temporary stay a reversal. The Court has not ruled on the merits yet. |
| Breitbart | U.S. right | 6 | Supreme Court Revives Safe Third-Country Deportations | 'Safe third country' is the name of a separate asylum-transfer concept. Using it here implies the destinations have been found safe, which is the very question in dispute. |
| MS NOW | U.S. left | 6 | Supreme Court backs Trump on third-country deportations over Democratic dissent | It labels three justices 'Democratic,' a party tag for a court whose members are not partisan officeholders. 'Backs Trump' suggests a merits ruling that has not happened yet. |
References
- Order List (609 U.S.), Tuesday, September 29, 2026 — Certiorari Granted 26-426 — Supreme Court of the United States (hosted by Courthouse News Service) · Primary source: court record
- Supreme Court allows third-country deportations to resume for now (AP) — Associated Press · Nonprofit news cooperative; U.S. center wire
- Supreme Court to hear argument on Trump administration's deportation of immigrants to third-party countries — SCOTUSblog · Legal-news site owned by The Dispatch (center-right publisher); coverage generally straight
- Supreme Court allows Trump's 'third country' deportation policy — NBC News · Comcast/NBCUniversal-owned; U.S. mainstream, center-left audience
- Supreme Court allows Trump administration to continue third-country deportations — Fox News · Fox Corp.-owned; U.S. right
- Trump administration again urges justices to allow deportations to third-party countries — SCOTUSblog · Legal-news site owned by The Dispatch (center-right publisher); coverage generally straight
- Immigrants ask Supreme Court to leave ruling in place preventing Trump administration from deporting them to third-party countries — SCOTUSblog · Legal-news site owned by The Dispatch (center-right publisher); coverage generally straight
- D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212 (1st Cir. 2026) — Justia (U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit opinion) · Primary source: court opinion
- Federal judge rules Trump admin may not remove people to third countries without due process — NBC News · Comcast/NBCUniversal-owned; U.S. mainstream, center-left audience
- Supreme Court lets Trump resume third-country deportations — CNBC · Versant-owned business news; U.S. center
- Supreme Court will hear third-country deportations challenge in December — Washington Examiner · Anschutz-owned; U.S. right
- US Supreme Court allows Trump to continue third-country deportations — Al Jazeera · Funded by the government of Qatar
- Supreme Court allows Trump to restart controversial deportations to third countries that migrants have no connection to — CNN · Warner Bros. Discovery-owned; U.S. center-left
- Supreme Court backs Trump on third-country deportations over Democratic dissent — MS NOW · Versant-owned cable news; U.S. left
- SCOTUS Greenlights Trump's Third-Country Deportations — The Federalist · Conservative online magazine; U.S. right
- Supreme Court Revives Safe Third-Country Deportations — Breitbart · Populist-right outlet; U.S. right
- U.S. Supreme Court allows — for now — third-country deportations (June 2025) — NPR · Publicly and donor-funded; U.S. center-left audience
- Supreme Court pauses district court order preventing immigrants from being deported to third party countries (June 2025) — SCOTUSblog · Legal-news site owned by The Dispatch (center-right publisher); coverage generally straight
- Appeals Court Smacks Down Trump's Third-Country Removal Policy — The American Prospect · Progressive magazine; U.S. left