Story
September 25, 2026
Trump asks Supreme Court to restore deportations critics say bypass due process
The administration says third-country deportations are vital to public safety and U.S. diplomacy, while lower courts warn migrants need notice and a chance to challenge removal before being sent to countries they do not know.
The Trump administration is asking the Supreme Court to revive a deportation policy that lower courts say can send migrants to unfamiliar countries without adequate warning or a meaningful chance to object. The clash pits the administration’s demand for speed and diplomatic flexibility against judicial concerns about persecution, torture and due process.
In its emergency appeal, the Justice Department argues that third-country removals are an essential enforcement tool, particularly for people whose home governments refuse to accept them or who have secured limited protection from removal. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the policy has enabled the administration to deport “thousands” and warned that “thousands more” could be eligible.1
The administration also frames the dispute as a foreign-policy problem. Sauer contends that lower-court intervention threatens “carefully negotiated arrangements” with countries willing to receive deportees and “will cause significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy.”1 The conservative framing, reflected in the description of the case as DHS’s “third countries” deportation fight, emphasizes the government’s need to remove people efficiently, including detainees with criminal records.1
Lower courts have taken the opposing view: before someone is sent to a country where they have no ties, officials must provide notice and an opportunity to challenge the removal. That concern is sharpened by the range of receiving countries, including nations facing repression, conflict and severe poverty.1
Reports from Liberia, where deportees from several Latin American countries said they felt stateless, underscore the human consequences. They said they were sent to West Africa without advance notice or an opportunity to contest the decision.1 The Supreme Court previously allowed the policy to continue while litigation proceeded, but the current appeal asks it to override lower-court protections once again. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has given the challengers until Monday afternoon to respond.1