In another significant decision, the Supreme Court lifted a federal court order that had prevented officials from deporting migrants to countries other than their own (third countries) without allowing them to raise concerns about potential dangers they might face.
Federal courts have ordered that those facing the threat of deportation be given sufficient time (15 days) to contact their lawyers and present evidence showing that their lives would be in danger if they were deported to these third countries. The Supreme Court hearing, requested by the Trump administration, gave the administration emergency relief, pausing the court’s injunction while the legal process continues in lower courts.
The order originally came when a flight carrying men from several countries, including Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Mexico, was heading to South Sudan but ended up in Djibouti after a court order mandated that the men be given sufficient time to dispute their destination.
Officials claim that these are criminals who have committed “heinous crimes” such as murder, arson, and armed robbery. These individuals were given less than 24 hours' notice before being put on a flight to South Sudan, with many of them unable to speak English and, therefore, having no way to dispute the notice.
Dissenting Opinions
The decision was a 6-3 majority, with the conservative bloc of the court comprising the majority. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the court’s decision regarding deportations to third countries, with Justice Sotomayor writing the dissenting opinion. She called the decision “an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion” and “flagrantly unlawful conduct.”
Additionally, she wrote, "The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard.”
Consequences of the Ruling
Significant challenges to this are expected to soon come in courts, including case-specific hearings on whether migrants face credible danger in the third countries they may be deported to, especially with reports that deportations to Tripoli, Libya may soon begin.
Pushback from immigration lawyers from organizations such as the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, Human Rights First, and the National Immigration Litigation Alliance has begun, with the ruling being called an abuse of due process—the requirement that the government provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking specific adverse actions.
The Supreme Court may revisit this issue when the entire appeal reaches it and receives legal briefs from both sides, followed by oral arguments and the issuance of both a formal majority and dissenting opinions. But for now, the current decision made stands.