The United States Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without giving them an opportunity to raise concerns about potential harm. This decision temporarily puts on hold a lower-court ruling that had restricted the administration's third-country deportation policy. The court's action enables the administration to continue deporting migrants to countries where they are neither citizens nor have any previous connection.
The policy allows migrants to be removed to third countries that provide credible diplomatic assurances that they will not be persecuted or tortured. For countries that have not provided such assurances, the policy provides for notice and an assessment of potential persecution or torture if the migrant raises such a concern. According to Reuters, more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under this policy, with the majority sent to Mexico. Several African countries, including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, and the Central African Republic, have also received deportees.
The Supreme Court's decision follows a ruling by a Boston-based federal district judge, Brian Murphy, who found the Department of Homeland Security's policy unlawful. The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld Murphy's ruling, finding that migrants should have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture before being deported to a third country. The administration subsequently asked the Supreme Court to intervene, and the court's six-member conservative majority allowed the deportations to resume.
The three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision. James Percival, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, welcomed the decision, saying it was "a bad day for criminal illegals and open-borders activists alike." However, Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the migrants challenging the policy, criticized the ruling, arguing that some migrants could face persecution or torture without adequate notice or an opportunity to raise their concerns.
The legal dispute began after the Department of Homeland Security moved to expand deportations of migrants who could not be returned to countries listed in their deportation orders. The administration has described third-country deportations as an important tool for removing migrants whose home countries refuse to accept them. In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department described the policy as "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens."
The Supreme Court is expected to hear full arguments in December before issuing a final ruling on the legal questions surrounding the policy. Meanwhile, Burundi has announced that it is prepared to accept some people deported from the United States despite having no previous connection to the East African country. Burundi's presidential spokesperson, Nancy Ninette Mutoni, said the country would accept deportees who were not facing prosecution and had no links to terrorism.
The US administration's policy has generated a wider legal and humanitarian dispute over the safeguards that should apply when migrants are sent to countries with which they have no established connection. Several African countries, including Eswatini and South Sudan, have received third-country deportees from the United States. The development highlights the complexities and challenges surrounding international deportation policies and the need for adequate safeguards to protect migrants' rights.
Key points
- The US Supreme Court has allowed the administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without giving them an opportunity to raise concerns about potential harm.
- The policy allows migrants to be removed to third countries that provide credible diplomatic assurances that they will not be persecuted or tortured.
- The Supreme Court is expected to hear full arguments in December before issuing a final ruling on the legal questions surrounding the policy.
