The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them an opportunity to demonstrate the harms they could face there.
The court granted the Justice Department’s emergency request to pause a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy that found the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country deportation policy unlawful.
The justices also agreed to hear arguments in the dispute in December, leaving the policy in effect while the litigation continues.
Murphy ruled in February that the policy violated federal immigration procedures and due process protections under the Fifth Amendment.
The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of that ruling on September 18.
The case was brought by immigrant rights groups representing migrants who argued that deportees must receive notice and an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture before being sent to third countries.
The Supreme Court’s three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — would have denied the administration’s request for emergency relief.
The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
Under the administration’s policy, migrants can be removed without advance notice to third countries that have provided credible diplomatic assurances that they will not persecute or torture deportees.
For countries without such assurances, migrants are notified of their destination, but authorities assess potential persecution or torture only when individuals raise those fears themselves.
More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, according to a tally by human rights groups cited by Reuters, with most sent to Mexico.
Other destinations have included South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic.
The Justice Department has described third-country removals as an essential tool for deporting migrants whose home countries cannot receive them.
Plaintiffs contend the policy has exposed deportees, including some previously protected from return to their home countries, to persecution, torture and other serious harms.
The Supreme Court’s eventual ruling will determine whether the policy complies with federal law, constitutional due process requirements and applicable regulations.