Supreme Court allows Trump administration to resume third-country deportations

The Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay on a district court order, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with "third-country removals" - deportations of migrants to nations that are not their country of origin or prior residence. This 6-3 ruling, divided along ideological lines, reverses a lower court's mandate for additional procedural protections, including the right for migrants to challenge such deportations under the Convention Against Torture.

This decision is a notable win for the administration's approach to immigration enforcement. However, Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson vehemently dissented, with Sotomayor asserting that the ruling "rewards lawlessness" and undermines fundamental due process rights.

Under federal law, third-country removals are intended as a last resort. Typically, the government is required to prioritize returning migrants to their country of arrival or a designated preferred destination. Only after exhausting these options can officials resort to deportation to any "country with a government that will accept the alien." The core of the legal dispute revolved around the due process requirements for these deportations, particularly the right to raise concerns under the Convention Against Torture, which prohibits sending individuals to countries where they face a substantial risk of torture. Justice Sotomayor's dissent highlighted instances where individuals were allegedly deported to Guatemala despite torture risks and to South Sudan despite U.S. State Department safety warnings. With the Supreme Court's stay now in effect, these deportations can resume without the procedural safeguards previously mandated, while the broader legal case continues through the appeals process.

Judge Brian Murphy's Injunction and its Aftermath

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts played a pivotal role in this controversy. On April 18, 2025, he issued a nationwide preliminary injunction, compelling the Trump administration to provide migrants with a "meaningful opportunity" to express concerns about potential persecution or torture before deportation to countries where they had no connections. Judge Murphy underscored the constitutional necessity of "a small modicum of process," including written notice of the destination country and a chance to apply for protection under the Convention Against Torture.

The injunction gained significant attention after the administration deported eight migrants to South Sudan merely 17 hours after their detention, a move Murphy deemed an "unquestionable" violation of his order. This prompted him to consider criminal contempt charges against administration officials and to order that the migrants sent to South Sudan remain in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti until they received a "reasonable fear interview." The Supreme Court's recent decision effectively overrides Murphy's injunction, permitting the administration to restart third-country deportations without the previously mandated procedural safeguards.

Djibouti Detention Conditions

The migrants and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers who were diverted to Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti face extremely challenging conditions. Housed in a converted shipping container serving as a makeshift detention facility, daily temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit. An ICE official, Melissa Harper, stated in a sworn declaration that the "conference room" where detainees are held "is not equipped nor suitable for detention of any length, let alone for the detention of high-risk individuals." This situation poses numerous health and safety risks:

These conditions stand in stark contrast to Djibouti's usual migrant detention practices, where most detainees are reportedly deported within 24 hours of arrest, although the country has previously held refugees in prolonged detention under poor conditions.