The Supreme Court of the United States has cleared the way for the Trump administration to carry out “third-country” deportations — that is, removing immigrants from the United States to countries that are not their home country — in a high-stakes case involving eight men held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. In a brief, unsigned order, the Court held that a prior ruling by a federal judge blocking such removals must be paused, allowing the deportations to proceed. This decision effectively overrode a lower-court’s effort to impose additional procedural safeguards — such as giving migrants notice of their final destination and a chance to contest the removal under fear-of-torture protections — even as legal appeals continue.

The background of the case begins with D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security, filed in early 2025, which challenged the government’s attempt to deport individuals under final removal orders to countries never mentioned in their original proceedings. In April, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy (D. Mass.) issued a preliminary injunction: the government could not deport people to a third country — one not previously specified — unless the government (1) provided written notice of the destination, (2) gave detainees a “meaningful opportunity” to contest the removal, and (3) offered a chance to apply for protection under Convention Against Torture (CAT).

In May, the administration attempted to send eight migrants — convicted criminals under final removal orders — to South Sudan. But Judge Murphy found that the government violated his injunction by giving the men only hours’ notice and no real chance to assert fear-based claims. As a result, the deportation flight was diverted to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where the men were held in makeshift detention conditions — reportedly in converted shipping containers in extreme heat, with limited medical care, under threat of malaria and even potential militant attacks.

Following that, the government appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 23, the Court issued a stay on Murphy’s injunction — but gave no reasoning. That stay technically paused the lower-court order pending appeal, creating confusion over whether the Djibouti detainees could be removed. The Supreme Court’s June ruling applied broadly: not only did it stay the April injunction, but it also implicitly rendered unenforceable the May remedial order that been issued when the government tried to deport the men.

After further legal moves, the Court clarified in a subsequent brief order that Murphy’s remedial order “cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.” In effect, that meant the eight detainees in Djibouti — and potentially others — could be sent to third countries, including South Sudan. On July 4, the men were deported to South Sudan after weeks of detention and legal wrangling.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court signaled deference to executive authority and considerably broadened the scope of deportations the government may carry out under third-country programs. Critics — including three liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — sharply dissented, warning that the government’s actions risk life-threatening harm for deportees. Sotomayor wrote that the ruling effectively allowed the government to pursue “unlawful ends,” pointing to the danger of torture, violence, or death the men might face upon arrival in South Sudan.

The case underscores a profound tension in U.S. immigration law: one between executive discretion in enforcing deportations — especially under aggressive removal policies — and the judiciary’s constitutional and statutory duty to protect individuals from harm. On one hand, the government argues that third-country deportations are necessary when homelands refuse to accept deportees, and that the process should not be bogged down by protracted court procedures. On the other, courts and rights advocates maintain that due process and protections under the Convention Against Torture demand meaningful review, especially when deportation could send individuals to unstable, conflict-ridden countries with risks of arbitrary detention, violence, or death. The Supreme Court’s decision represents a major expansion of executive power — but at the cost of reducing judicial safeguards in high-risk removals.