The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration, for now, to continue its policy of deporting migrants to third countries rather than their countries of origin. The Court stayed a February 25, 2026 order and judgment issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and agreed to hear the case in December 2026. The order does not determine the final legality of the policy.
The Supreme Court’s official docket shows that the Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency application on September 29, 2026. The application was also treated as a petition for a writ of certiorari, and the petition was granted. The case is Department of Homeland Security, et al. v. D.V.D., et al., No. 26-426.
Under the policy, the U.S. government can send certain migrants to a country other than their country of origin when they have final removal orders. The Trump administration says the option is used in cases where a person cannot be returned to their country of origin or where that country will not accept them.
The government says assurances are obtained from third-country governments that people being removed will not face persecution or mistreatment there.
Lawyers representing migrants and human rights organizations have challenged the policy. They argue that people should have a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns before being sent to third countries, particularly where they could face persecution or torture.
The case before the Supreme Court is Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. The Court has temporarily stayed the lower court’s order while the case proceeds.
The practical effect of the Supreme Court’s order is that the Trump administration can continue its third-country removal policy while the case is pending. However, the Court has not issued a final ruling on the policy’s legal validity.
The Supreme Court said the case will address several legal questions, including whether the district court had jurisdiction over the migrants’ claims and whether it had authority to provide classwide declaratory relief and Administrative Procedure Act vacatur. The Court will also consider whether the government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. §1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act and Convention Against Torture provisions and implementing regulations.
The Supreme Court directed that the case be briefed and argued during its December 2026 argument session. The Court’s order specifically directs the parties to address the jurisdiction of the district court, the scope of classwide relief and the legality of the government’s third-country removal guidance.
The December arguments will therefore address questions concerning the removal process as well as the authority of federal courts and the legal limits on the administration’s immigration policy.
According to the Supreme Court’s order, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the administration’s application for a stay. The other six justices allowed the stay to take effect.
During its court proceedings, the Trump administration said the lower court’s order had forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people to three countries.
The administration has described the policy as an important tool for enforcing U.S. immigration law. Lawyers representing migrants have argued that sending people to third countries without sufficient legal procedures can create serious safety risks.
Reuters reported that more than 25,000 people had been sent to third countries under the policy, with many sent to Mexico.
Human rights experts have also raised concerns about third-country removals. Independent human rights experts affiliated with the United Nations have urged the United States to halt the policy, saying that removals to third countries could increase the risk of persecution and torture for some migrants.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing migrants, has said the Supreme Court’s interim order does not constitute a final ruling declaring the policy lawful. The Supreme Court’s official docket lists Realmuto as counsel of record for the respondents.
The Trump administration’s position is that third-country removals are necessary in cases involving people with final removal orders who cannot be returned to their countries of origin.
The administration considers the policy part of its broader immigration enforcement program. During President Donald Trump’s second term, deportation efforts targeting people who are unlawfully present in the United States have remained a major component of its immigration policy.
The central legal dispute concerns the extent to which a person must be given an opportunity to object to potential dangers in a third country before being removed there.
The Supreme Court’s September 29 order allows the Trump administration to continue third-country removals while the case proceeds, but it does not resolve the underlying legal dispute. The Court has accepted the case and directed that arguments be heard during the December 2026 session.
The upcoming arguments will address questions involving immigration law, constitutional due process, the jurisdiction and authority of federal courts, and the legal protections applicable to people facing removal to third countries.
