Trump Asks Supreme Court to Restore Third-Country Deportations After Appeals Court Ruling/ TezzBuzz/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to block an appeals court ruling restricting deportations to countries other than migrants’ homelands. The decision forced officials to cancel a flight carrying 70 people to three unnamed countries and reopen diplomatic discussions. The court did not completely ban third-country deportations but required that migrants receive a meaningful opportunity to raise persecution or torture concerns.
Quick Look
- The administration filed an emergency Supreme Court appeal.
- An appeals court halted unrestricted third-country deportations.
- A flight carrying 70 deportees was canceled.
- Migrant advocates said the flight was headed to three African countries.
- The government says 25,000 people have been deported to third countries.
- Some deportees have reported detention, violence and coercion abroad.
- The lower court requires a meaningful opportunity to object.
- The Trump administration says the process will cause unreasonable delays.
- The Supreme Court previously allowed the flights to continue temporarily.
Deep Look
Trump administration seeks emergency Supreme Court action
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after an appeals court ruling restricted the government’s ability to deport migrants to countries other than their own.
The administration said the decision disrupted a central component of its immigration crackdown and forced officials to cancel an international deportation flight.
The ruling came from the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals shortly before midnight Wednesday.
Administration lawyers urged the Supreme Court to “halt that chaos,” arguing that the decision created immediate diplomatic and logistical problems.
Flight carrying 70 people canceled
Federal officials said the appeals court’s decision forced them to cancel a flight carrying 70 people to three countries.
The administration did not publicly identify those destinations.
It said the cancellation “required a new round of diplomatic engagement with each of the three countries.”
Third-country deportations frequently depend on private agreements with foreign governments. Those countries must agree to receive people who are not their citizens and provide assurances regarding their treatment.
Immigrant advocates identified three African destinations
Lawyers representing immigrants requested emergency intervention from the appeals court Wednesday night.
They said “multiple sources” had informed them that a deportation flight was scheduled to leave Alexandria, Louisiana, the following day.
According to the plaintiffs, the plane was expected to transport people to Burundi, Rwanda and the Central African Republic.
Within hours, the appeals court clarified an earlier decision against the administration’s policy.
The court said a previous order permitting the flights to continue while litigation proceeded was no longer in effect.
Attorney general condemns ruling
Administration officials responded angrily to the late-night decision.
Attorney General Todd Blanche said the order was issued “in the dark of night” and had taken away “an entirely legal and valuable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration.”
The administration argues that third-country deportations are necessary when migrants’ home governments refuse to accept them or when returning them directly is otherwise impossible.
The Supreme Court previously allowed those flights to continue temporarily when the same legal dispute reached the justices last year.
Thousands sent to countries other than their own
Most migrants removed to countries other than their homelands have been sent to Mexico.
However, the Trump administration has also established a series of agreements—many of them negotiated in secret—to deport thousands of people to more than two dozen other nations.
Those destinations range from Liberia in West Africa to Guyana in South America.
Some deportees have arrived in unfamiliar countries they had never previously visited or even heard of.
Reports indicate that some have been detained against their will or left with few practical options other than returning to the countries they originally fled.
Deportees report violence and detention
Immigrant advocates say third-country deportations can expose people to serious security and human-rights risks.
Earlier this month, attorneys representing two men deported to Equatorial Guinea said police officers beat them and held them at gunpoint.
The lawyers said officers placed bags over the men’s heads while holding them inside a hotel that had been converted into a detention center.
Such allegations have intensified legal challenges over whether U.S. officials adequately evaluate the dangers migrants could face before deporting them.
Administration cites foreign assurances
The Trump administration says it uses third-country removals when migrants have final deportation orders but cannot be returned to their homelands.
Government lawyers say receiving nations provide diplomatic assurances that deportees will not face persecution or torture.
Critics question whether those guarantees can be independently verified or enforced after individuals leave the United States.
They also argue that migrants must receive notice of their destination early enough to consult attorneys and challenge a removal if they fear abuse.
DHS calls deportations essential
James Percival, general counsel for the Department of Homeland Securitysaid Wednesday that the United States has deported 25,000 people living in the country illegally to third nations.
He described those removals as “an essential public safety tool.”
The administration maintains that restrictions will leave it unable to remove certain people with final deportation orders, particularly when their home countries refuse repatriation.
Court requires meaningful opportunity to object
The lower court’s ruling does not completely prohibit deportations to third countries.
Instead, it requires the government to give people a meaningful opportunity to object before they are sent to a particular destination.
Migrants must be able to raise credible concerns that they could face persecutiontorture or other serious harm in the receiving country.
The dispute centers on how much notice the government must provide and how long officials must allow for a legal challenge.
Administration warns of unreasonable delays
The Trump administration argues that the required procedures would create significant delays and force officials to renegotiate existing diplomatic agreements.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the Supreme Court to suspend the appeals court’s order.
“The order below would again obstruct DHS from efficiently removing aliens … by inordinately delaying third-country removal for any alien who voices a fear of persecution or torture in that country, no matter how frivolous or belated the claim,” Sauer wrote.
The administration contends that migrants could delay deportation simply by raising last-minute claims, even when officials consider those objections unfounded.
Case tests limits of immigration crackdown
The emergency appeal comes amid Trump’s expansive campaign to deport millions of people living in the United States without legal authorization.
Third-country removals have become increasingly important to that effort because some nations refuse to accept deportees or delay providing travel documents.
The Supreme Court must now decide whether the administration may resume the policy under its preferred procedures while the underlying legal challenge continues.
The case will determine whether federal officials can prioritize rapid deportations or must provide stronger procedural protections to people facing removal to unfamiliar countries.
More on US News