A must-read analysis for immigration attorneys, constitutional litigators, and legal scholars following emergency relief jurisprudence.
In a closely watched immigration dispute, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to proceed with third-country deportations, pausing a district court’s order that would have required stringent due process protections for immigrants facing removal to nations not specified in their deportation orders.
This high-stakes legal battle—decided on the Court’s “shadow docket”—carries major implications for due process, immigration enforcement, and international human rights law, especially the U.S.’s obligations under the Convention Against Torture (CAT).
🛂 Background: What Is “Third-Country Removal”?
When an immigrant receives a deportation order in the U.S., it typically names their country of origin as the destination. But under executive guidance from the Trump administration, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) may opt to deport individuals to other “third-party” countries—even those with no prior connection to the immigrant—if removal to the home country poses a risk of torture or persecution.
In early 2024, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued guidance under this policy, allowing ICE to send immigrants to alternative countries while implementing minimal procedures to screen for torture risks.
⚖️ The Legal Challenge: Federal Due Process vs. Executive Discretion
A group of four undocumented immigrants, all with final removal orders, challenged this policy in U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, arguing that third-country deportations without adequate notice or screening violate statutory and constitutional protections.
Judge Brian Murphy agreed, issuing an injunction that required DHS to:
- Provide written notice to affected individuals and their attorneys.
- Allow at least 10 days to express fear of torture.
- Conduct a screening for reasonable fear of torture.
- Provide at least 15 days to allow legal motions to reopen removal proceedings if necessary.
Murphy’s order did not block third-country removals outright—only required that the government adhere to due process and human rights norms.
🚨 The Supreme Court Steps In
On May 27, 2025, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to pause Murphy’s injunction, arguing that it disrupted national security, foreign policy, and diplomatic arrangements—including sensitive efforts involving South Sudan, a war-torn country under U.S. travel advisory.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that the court-imposed procedures were “wreaking havoc” on DHS operations and alleged that they overstepped judicial authority.
On May 28, in a brief, unsigned order, the Supreme Court granted the stay, allowing deportations to continue without the district court’s procedural safeguards while the case is on appeal.
💔 Dissenting Opinion: Sotomayor Speaks Out
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a blistering 19-page dissent, expressing profound concern about both the government’s actions and the Court’s willingness to intervene:
“Apparently,” Sotomayor wrote, “the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers…”
She emphasized the rule of law, accusing the government of defying court orders multiple times—first by sending immigrants to Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador, then attempting to deport individuals to South Sudan, a region embroiled in ethnic and political violence.
“The Government thus openly flouted two court orders, including the one from which it now seeks relief.”
Sotomayor warned that granting relief to a party in contempt of lower court orders threatens the legitimacy of judicial authority:
“Each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
🌍 Real-World Stakes: South Sudan & Beyond
This case is not just a theoretical battle. One of the most controversial removals involved deportations to South Sudan, a country in the midst of armed conflict, including clashes between rival ethnic militias and political factions.
In a May 22 hearing, Judge Murphy found that the government had already violated his order by attempting to deport immigrants there without the required notice or screening. The plane, mid-flight, was rerouted to Djibouti, where the immigrants and ICE agents remain in limbo.
The Court’s stay now permits the government to proceed with similar removals—even to dangerous territories—without the court-mandated protections in place.
📈 Broader Legal and Policy Implications
This decision has far-reaching effects:
- Immigration Law: The case could set precedent on how much process is due when implementing alternative removal options.
- Separation of Powers: Raises alarms about the judiciary’s authority to constrain the executive in sensitive national security contexts.
- Human Rights: Tests U.S. compliance with international treaties, including the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
- Shadow Docket Criticism: Adds to concerns over the Supreme Court’s growing use of emergency, unsigned orders without full briefing or transparency.
🧵 What’s Next?
The legal battle is far from over. The underlying appeal will proceed in the First Circuit, where the government must defend the merits of its third-country removal process. If the court ultimately upholds Murphy’s injunction, the issue may return to the Supreme Court for full review.
Until then, the emergency stay remains in effect, and immigrants facing third-country removal may now be sent to dangerous territories without sufficient warning or recourse.
#SCOTUS #ImmigrationLaw #DueProcess #HumanRights #Deportation #ShadowDocket #RuleOfLaw #SotomayorDissent #ICE #CAT #LegalNews #LawStudents #LawBlog
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment