In a major legal victory for the Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday that the federal government can deport illegal aliens to countries other than their nation of origin—overruling a lower court injunction that previously blocked the practice on due process grounds.
The 6-3 decision came in response to an emergency request from the Trump administration, seeking to lift U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s nationwide injunction that had halted such deportations. The Supreme Court granted the request without a detailed explanation, allowing the policy to move forward immediately.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
The decision effectively revives a policy of redirecting deportations to third countries, including nations with which the U.S. has deportation agreements, as part of its broader crackdown on illegal immigration. The ruling grants immigration authorities broader discretion in removing individuals deemed unlawfully present in the country, even if the destination country differs from their original home.
While the majority did not issue a written opinion, the decision allows the administration to bypass prior requirements that migrants be given the opportunity to challenge deportation to alternate countries on safety grounds.
Critics argue this could result in individuals being sent to nations where they face the risk of persecution or death.
Justice Sotomayor accused the court of undermining “basic constitutional protections.”
“By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines that foundational principle,” she wrote. “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled.”
Some may find irony in Sotomayor’s use of the phrase “rewarding lawlessness.” The justice, who has routinely ruled in favor of expanding protections for illegal immigrants, has often sided with plaintiffs seeking to block immigration enforcement and border security measures. Immigration hawks argue her judicial record has consistently prioritized non-citizens over the enforcement of U.S. immigration law, even in cases involving repeat offenders or fraudulent asylum claims. To many, her condemnation of a deportation policy as “lawlessness” while opposing most forms of immigration enforcement underscores a deep ideological inconsistency.
Judge Murphy, appointed by President Biden, had ruled earlier this year that the Trump administration violated due process by attempting to deport individuals to countries not named in their final removal orders. He insisted that migrants must be granted an opportunity to present evidence of potential harm before being deported elsewhere.
The Trump administration appealed the injunction, calling it a dangerous overreach that impeded lawful enforcement of immigration policy. The Supreme Court’s order now clears the way for the administration to resume the practice.
Immigrant advocacy groups sharply condemned the ruling. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, warned the decision would have dire consequences for vulnerable individuals.
This decision marks another step in President Trump’s aggressive second-term immigration agenda, which has included mass deportation plans, expanded detention authority, and strengthened border enforcement.
With the legal green light from the nation’s highest court, the Trump administration is expected to accelerate removals in the coming weeks.
READ NEXT: Report: First Trump $1,000 ‘Self-Deport’ Flight Conducted By DHS
