The Supreme Court, on June 23, granted a pause on a judge’s order that mandated migrants be given the opportunity to contest potential harm if deported to countries other than their own, a move supporting the Trump administration’s push for swift deportations. The dissenting liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, criticized the decision, with Sotomayor accusing the Court of condoning “lawlessness.” The majority’s decision lacked explanation, a common practice in emergency appeals.

Attorneys for the migrants expressed concern over the ruling’s ramifications but clarified that the focus was on judicial intervention at an interim case stage. The administration argued that the lifted order was hindering deportations by imposing cumbersome procedures to prevent migrants from being sent to perilous destinations. Solicitor General John Sauer highlighted the challenges of removing individuals deemed high-priority.

Judge Brian Murphy emphasized the migrants’ right to information and a chance to voice concerns about their destination, citing constitutional mandates. The court’s April ruling on migrants contesting removal under wartime laws informed Murphy’s decision. In a separate incident, the Trump administration allegedly violated the order by deporting individuals to conflict zones without due process.

The migrants’ lawyers criticized the administration for punitive removals to dangerous locations with minimal notice, emphasizing the protection of basic human rights regardless of criminal history. The case of a Guatemalan man, deported to Mexico and later returned following a court directive, underscored the importance of procedural fairness in deportation proceedings.