The U.S. Supreme Court has authorised the Trump administration to resume deporting certain non‑citizens to third countries without giving them a meaningful chance to present concerns about possible danger, reversing a lower court’s injunction issued on 18 April 2025. In a 6–3 decision, the majority allowed expedited removals to countries like South Sudan, El Salvador, Guatemala and Kosovo, where migrants may face violence or persecution.
Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a vigorous dissent, describing the ruling as an “incomprehensible” abuse of judicial power that jeopardises non‑citizens’ constitutional rights and undermines fundamental due‑process protections. Justice Sotomayor emphasised that the decision prioritises administrative convenience over individual safety, exposing migrants to possible torture or death.
The focal point of this case was a decision by District Judge Brian Murphy, who had previously blocked deportations to South Sudan without allowing migrants to contest absences of danger – an order that the Supreme Court has now stayed pending appeal. The administration contends that the policy is lawful, consistent with executive authority and crucial for removing criminal non‑citizens when their home countries refuse repatriation.
Human rights proponents argue the ruling violates the principle of non‑refoulement, which underpins international law by prohibiting the return of individuals to nations where they risk serious harm. Experts note that sending migrants to unstable or conflict‑affected territories may breach both U.S. and international legal obligations.
This decision signals a notable shift in U.S. immigration law and executive–judicial relations. While the administration hails it as a win for national security and management of criminal deportations, advocates warn of the dangerous implications for due process and refugee protection frameworks. With additional legal challenges anticipated, the boundaries between immigration control and human‑rights safeguards remain fiercely contested.
