The US Supreme Court recently allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to demonstrate potential harms they could face, marking a victory for the administration’s deportation efforts. This decision overturned a judicial order that required officials to provide migrants with a “meaningful opportunity” to raise concerns about potential torture in their new destination. The dissenting liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, disagreed with the ruling.

The legal dispute arose after the Department of Homeland Security sought to increase rapid deportations to third countries, prompting immigrant rights groups to file a lawsuit on behalf of migrants challenging their removal without adequate notice or opportunity to assert potential risks. Judge Brian Murphy intervened when the administration attempted to send migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country with significant security concerns according to the US State Department.

The Trump administration defended its third-country deportation policy as necessary to remove migrants who have committed serious crimes, citing challenges in repatriating them to their countries of origin. However, critics argue that the policy may violate due process requirements under the constitution by not providing sufficient notice and opportunities for migrants to present fear-based claims.

This case is part of a series of legal battles over Trump administration policies, including immigration, that have reached the Supreme Court. While the administration asserts that its third-country deportation policy is lawful and essential for public safety, opponents continue to challenge its compliance with constitutional protections and basic principles of due process.