On June 23, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made a controversial decision to lift restrictions on the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to countries where they have no ties, overturning a federal judge’s order. This ruling, decided without explanation from the court’s conservative majority, has ignited a fierce debate over immigration policy, due process, and human rights. The court’s three liberal justices issued a sharp dissent, accusing their colleagues of “rewarding lawlessness” and ignoring the potential for violence against deported migrants. This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing battle over the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration crackdown.
Background of the Case
The case centers on the Trump administration’s use of third-country removals, a process where migrants are deported to countries other than their own or the one listed on their deportation order. The administration argues this policy is essential for removing “heinous criminals” from the U.S., especially when their home countries refuse to accept them. However, immigrant rights groups, representing several anonymous noncitizens, sued the administration, claiming these deportations violate federal laws and the constitutional right to due process.
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee based in Boston, issued a nationwide injunction blocking these deportations unless migrants were given a meaningful opportunity to argue they could face torture or persecution in the third country. The administration’s attempt to deport a group of convicted criminals to South Sudan, a war-torn nation, violated this order, prompting further legal action. Instead of returning the migrants to the U.S., the administration diverted their flight to a U.S. military base in Djibouti, where immigration officials have since been guarding them, raising concerns about the safety and health of the agents involved.
The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling on June 23 paused Judge Murphy’s injunction, allowing the administration to resume third-country deportations while the case moves through an appeals court. The court’s conservative majority issued a brief, unsigned order with no explanation, a move criticized as part of the court’s “shadow docket”—decisions made quickly without full arguments or public reasoning. This lack of transparency left many questioning the basis for the majority’s decision.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) celebrated the ruling as a “victory for the safety and security of the American people.” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin stated, “DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them.” The White House echoed this sentiment, with spokesperson Abigail Jackson calling the decision a reaffirmation of the president’s authority to “Make America Safe Again.”
The Liberal Justices’ Dissent
The court’s three liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued a 19-page dissent, fiercely criticizing the majority’s decision. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the trio, accused the court of prioritizing the government’s convenience over the lives of migrants who could face “violence in far-flung locales.” She argued that the ruling “rewards lawlessness” by allowing the administration to bypass due process, which requires migrants to receive notice and a chance to challenge their deportation if they fear torture or persecution.
Sotomayor emphasized that the administration’s actions defied Judge Murphy’s orders, noting that the government chose to hold migrants in Djibouti rather than comply with the court’s requirement to provide legal access. “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution,” she wrote. “In this case, the government took the opposite approach.” The dissenters warned that the ruling could lead to thousands of migrants being sent to dangerous countries without adequate protections, calling the majority’s decision “incomprehensible” and “inexcusable.”
The Broader Context
This case is part of a larger wave of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s immigration policies since the president returned to office in January 2025. The administration has vowed to carry out the largest deportation campaign in U.S. history, including ending humanitarian programs and expanding third-country removals. Earlier Supreme Court rulings this year allowed the administration to lift protections for migrants under temporary protected status or humanitarian parole, but others have upheld due process requirements.
The third-country deportation policy has drawn particular scrutiny. For example, the administration considered sending migrants to Libya, a country criticized for its harsh treatment of detainees, before Judge Murphy’s order halted the plan. In May 2025, the administration’s attempt to deport eight men—convicted of serious crimes like murder and armed robbery—to South Sudan sparked outrage. Only one of the men was from South Sudan, with others hailing from countries like Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Vietnam, and Myanmar. Immigrant rights groups argue that deporting individuals to unfamiliar, unstable countries violates both U.S. law and basic human rights.
Leila Kang, a lawyer with the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling, stating, “The Supreme Court’s order leaves thousands of people vulnerable to deportation to third countries where they face torture or death, even if the deportations are clearly unlawful.” She and other advocates argue that the administration’s policy disregards the safety of migrants and undermines the legal system.
What Happens Next?
The case now returns to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where it will be further litigated. It could eventually make its way back to the Supreme Court on its regular docket, potentially leading to a more detailed ruling. For now, the administration can resume third-country deportations, including sending the group of men held in Djibouti to South Sudan.
Critics of the policy, including Judge Murphy, insist that migrants must have at least 10 days to raise claims about potential dangers in the countries they’re being sent to. The administration, however, argues that its policy already complies with due process and that third-country removals are critical for national security and public safety. Solicitor General D. John Sauer called Murphy’s injunction a threat to “this country’s foreign-policy and national-security interests,” arguing it hampers efforts to deport dangerous criminals.
Why It Matters
The Supreme Court’s decision highlights the deep divide over immigration policy in the United States. Supporters of the Trump administration’s approach see it as a necessary step to strengthen border security and remove criminals from the country. Opponents, including immigrant rights groups and the court’s liberal justices, argue that it sacrifices fairness and humanity for expediency, putting vulnerable people at risk of harm.
As the legal battle continues, the fate of thousands of migrants hangs in the balance. The ruling raises broader questions about the balance between national security and individual rights, the role of the judiciary in checking executive power, and the moral implications of deporting people to potentially dangerous destinations. For now, the Supreme Court’s decision marks a victory for the Trump administration—but the fight is far from over.