On 29 September 2026, the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to so-called third countries, nations to which they have no ties. In Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. (offering an opinion on a lower court decision) the justices voted 6–3, with the three liberal justices, Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson, in dissent. The unsigned order paused a ruling by District Judge Brian Murphy, largely upheld by a divided First Circuit Court of Appeals, which required that migrants receive meaningful notice and a chance to argue they faced persecution or torture before removal. The Court will also hear full arguments in December, with a final decision expected by July 2027.
The policy emerged in 2025 as the administration sought to remove people with final deportation orders whose home countries would not take them back. Around 25,000 people have since been sent to more than two dozen countries, including South Sudan and Liberia. The government relies on diplomatic assurances that deportees will not be mistreated and argues the policy is vital for removing serious criminals. Opponents counter that federal law and the Convention Against Torture forbid returning anyone to likely danger, and that without a hearing those protections become meaningless. It is the third time the Court has sided with the government in this litigation.
Constitutionally, the case tests how far the executive can go in enforcing immigration law, an area where presidents enjoy wide discretion. It also raises questions about Fifth Amendment due process, which protects all persons rather than only citizens. The Court has again acted through its emergency docket, without written reasoning. Critics call this the shadow docket, arguing that major policy is being settled without explanation, while supporters say it restrains district judges who block an elected president’s policies. The questions set for December, covering jurisdiction and the policy’s lawfulness, show that the power of lower courts is as much at stake as migrants’ rights.
The ruling illuminates the debate about checks and balances. For now, the Court has acted less as a check on the presidency than as a check on the lower courts, strengthening executive power over immigration while weakening protections for non-citizens. Defenders see judicial restraint: deference to the elected branch in a field the Constitution largely assigns to the political branches. Critics see an overtly political court, pointing to a consistent 6–3 split that mirrors the parties of the presidents who appointed the justices. December will show whether the Court will set meaningful limits.