US Supreme Court temporarily clears third-country deportations
The US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue deporting migrants to countries other than their own while litigation proceeds. It paused a lower-court order requiring an opportunity to object to safety risks before removal. Three justices opposed the temporary relief. The court will hear the case in December; the policy’s ultimate legality and migrants’ chance to challenge danger at the destination remain before the court.
Geopolitics··Morning
Removals may continue while the case proceeds
In an unsigned order dated 29 September, the US Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to continue sending migrants to countries other than their own while the case proceeds. It temporarily paused a lower-court ruling on the practice. Al Jazeera and Roll Call reported the same court action. The justices will hear arguments in December; this interim order does not settle whether the policy is ultimately lawful. Its immediate effect is to permit removals before the litigation reaches a final decision.[1], [2]
The dispute centers on objections to danger
Federal judge Brian Murphy in Boston had ruled that people must have a meaningful chance to object to dangers in a proposed third country before removal. Roll Call describes the lower court’s concern with an opportunity to raise risks of torture or persecution. Al Jazeera also identifies the chance to make safety objections as central to the case. The administration argues that third-country removals are needed when home countries refuse to receive people. The parties’ competing legal positions have not been resolved by a final judgment.[1], [2]
Three justices opposed the interim relief
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they would have denied the administration’s request for interim relief. Roll Call notes that they did not issue separate dissents. The court set argument for December, separating permission to proceed for now from review of the policy’s legal and constitutional basis. After a similar Supreme Court order last year, eight men were sent to South Sudan. That history illustrates the stakes of the dispute, but it does not establish how many people or which destinations this new order will affect.[1], [2]
