U.S.
Supreme Court lets third-country removals resume while it takes up case
The 6-3 emergency order changes the rules during litigation; it does not decide whether the administration’s policy is lawful. The Court set the case for argument in December.
Executive summary
- What the Court did: On Sept. 29, the Supreme Court granted the administration’s stay request, paused a February order governing third-country removals, granted review in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. and scheduled argument for December 2026. Three justices said they would have denied the stay.[1][2][3]
- What changes now: The stay removes the lower court’s protections while the case proceeds, allowing the administration to resume removals under the challenged policy. The order is temporary; the justices have not decided whether the policy complies with immigration law, due process or protections against torture.[1][2][3]
- What comes next: The Court will hear the case in December. Its docket identifies questions about the scope of district-court relief and whether the policy violates federal immigration law or constitutional and treaty-based protections.[1]
The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s request to put a lower-court order on hold while the justices consider the dispute. In the same order, the Court accepted the case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., for review and set arguments for December 2026. The order is a stay, not a final judgment that the challenged policy is lawful.[1][2][3]
The immediate consequence is that the February order’s protections no longer constrain removals while the case is pending. The Associated Press and Reuters reported that the decision allows the administration to resume sending people with final removal orders to countries other than their own under its third-country policy. The Supreme Court’s docket records the stay and the grant of review; it does not describe the order as a decision on the merits.[1][2][3]
The Court’s docket says the case will address whether district courts may issue classwide relief and whether the policy violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, the Due Process Clause or the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act, which implements U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture. Those are questions for the December argument and later decision, not conclusions reached in Tuesday’s emergency order.[1]
The underlying case concerns people facing removal to countries not named in their removal orders. The challenged process has been contested over whether people receive meaningful notice and a chance to raise concerns that they could face persecution or torture in a proposed destination. The administration has argued that third-country removals are needed when a person’s country of origin will not accept them; lawyers for the migrants have argued that the process can expose people to serious danger without an adequate opportunity to object, according to AP and Reuters.[2][3]
The vote on the stay was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting, AP reported. The emergency order settles which rules apply during the litigation, but not the central legal questions. Until the Court rules after hearing the case, the policy’s legality remains unresolved.[2][3][1]