The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to resume rapidly deporting immigrants to countries other than their own while the justices consider the legality of the policy.
The Sept. 29 decision gives the administration temporary authority to continue the practice, but it does not resolve whether the policy ultimately complies with the Constitution or other legal protections.
The court agreed to hear arguments in December, with a ruling expected next year. The case centers on immigrants who challenged the administration’s practice of sending people to countries where they may have no ties.
A bad day for criminal illegals and open borders activists alike,” said James Percival, the top lawyer at the Department of Homeland Security. “It’s not too late to get $3,000 and a flight home.” He ended his statement with a link to department instructions for immigrants on how to self-deport.
Destinations have included Liberia, Equatorial Guinea, Costa Rica, Honduras and the Central African Republic. The Supreme Court’s decision was 6-3, with Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
The case could have significant consequences for immigrant communities, including Brooklyn neighborhoods with large immigrant populations. At issue is whether immigrants facing removal must be given an opportunity to object when they believe they could face persecution or torture in the country where they are being sent.
The administration has described third-country deportations as an important immigration enforcement tool. Its lawyers have argued that restrictions imposed by lower courts have disrupted deportation operations and arrangements with other countries.
Immigrants challenging the policy argue that people should have an opportunity to raise protection claims before being sent to countries where they could face serious harm.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in December on both the authority of the lower court that previously blocked the deportations and the broader constitutional and international law questions surrounding the policy.
Until then, the administration can continue the deportations under the Supreme Court’s temporary order. The eventual ruling will determine whether the policy can continue under the legal framework challenged in the case.
