On June 23, 2025, the United States Supreme Court delivered a brief but consequential order, permitting the Trump administration to resume deporting certain immigrants to third-party countries—even when those countries are not named in the original removal orders. This decision, issued without full briefing or oral argument, temporarily halts a lower court ruling that had required the federal government to provide notice and procedural protections before carrying out such transfers.
At the heart of the litigation are four undocumented immigrants with final orders of removal. These individuals, like many others, were not immediately deported to their home countries due to credible fears of torture. In response, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under directives from President Trump's executive order, issued new guidance in early 2025 to initiate third-country removals as an alternative. However, concerns quickly arose regarding the lack of safeguards for immigrants facing transfer to countries with poor human rights records.
In March 2025, DHS outlined internal procedures that required giving notice to immigrants facing third-country deportation, allowing them to express fear of torture, and—if necessary—undergo a screening interview. Despite these policies, federal officials attempted to deport several individuals without following these protocols.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts intervened, issuing a temporary order barring such deportations unless DHS complied with specific due process protections. These included written notice, a ten-day window to respond, an assessment of torture risk, and a fifteen-day period to reopen removal proceedings if needed. Judge Murphy's order came after a particularly alarming incident involving the attempted deportation of individuals to South Sudan—an active conflict zone under State Department travel advisories—without appropriate safeguards.
When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit declined to stay Judge Murphy's order, the federal government turned to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling was disrupting sensitive foreign policy and national security operations. Without offering any explanation, a majority of the justices agreed to put the district court's order on hold, allowing the third-country deportations to proceed.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a powerful dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. She criticized the majority for granting “emergency relief from an order [the Government] has repeatedly defied,” emphasizing that the government openly flouted the lower court's directives—first by removing individuals to Guantanamo Bay and El Salvador, and later by attempting to send others to South Sudan.
Justice Sotomayor underscored a fundamental principle: the government is obligated to follow court orders, even if it disagrees with them. “Each time this Court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief,” she warned, “it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law.”
At Saluja Law, we are deeply troubled by the implications of this decision. Third-country removals—particularly to nations with unstable regimes or documented human rights abuses—must be approached with the utmost caution and transparency. The Constitution and international treaties, including the Convention Against Torture, require that no person be removed to a country where they are likely to face persecution or inhumane treatment.
The Supreme Court's decision does not resolve the legal merits of the case—it simply pauses the district court's order while litigation continues. But for the thousands of noncitizens facing the real threat of deportation to dangerous foreign lands, this pause may have irreversible consequences.
We urge advocates, lawmakers, and the legal community to remain vigilant. The rule of law must apply equally to all—citizen and noncitizen alike. As this case proceeds, we hope the courts will reaffirm the importance of due process, judicial authority, and America's obligations to protect the vulnerable from harm.
Saluja Law
Protecting Due Process | Defending Human Dignity
www.salujalaw.com