US Supreme Court Clears Trump Administration To Resume Deporting Migrants To Third Countries

The United States Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their home nations without giving them an opportunity to raise human rights concerns before removal.

The court also agreed to hear arguments on the legality of the policy later this year, with a ruling expected by July, according to CNN.

The decision marked the third time the Supreme Court has allowed the administration to enforce the deportation programme temporarily. The court’s three liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented.

The administration introduced the policy as part of its immigration crackdown, allowing migrants to be deported to third countries when their home countries refuse or are unable to receive them, even when the migrants have no ties to those destinations.

An estimated 25,000 migrants have been removed under the policy.

The programme came under scrutiny last year after immigrant rights groups disclosed that a group of migrants who were initially being sent to South Sudan were detained in Djibouti in a converted shipping container.

The Supreme Court said it would consider three main questions when it hears the case, including whether the district court had jurisdiction to rule on the matter, whether it had authority to issue a ruling covering all migrants affected by the policy and whether the administration’s third-country removal policy is lawful.

The court also said the administration could propose additional questions for consideration.

The unsigned order did not provide an explanation for the decision, while the three dissenting justices did not issue separate opinions.

President Donald Trump filed an emergency appeal on September 24 after the Boston-based 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals effectively blocked the removals.

The administration argued that the lower court’s ruling had created logistical difficulties for ongoing deportation operations and required officials to cancel flights carrying dozens of migrants.

The Justice Department also argued that lower courts had repeatedly ruled against the policy despite previous Supreme Court decisions allowing it to continue.

Attorneys representing the migrants, however, argued that the administration should be required to comply with legal protections before carrying out the removals.

“Denying a stay does not prevent third-country removals,” the attorneys told the Supreme Court. “Rather, it simply requires them to do so lawfully.”

The case centres on the Convention Against Torture, which was ratified by the US Senate in 1994 and generally prohibits deportation or extradition to countries where a person faces a risk of torture.

Lower courts have ruled that migrants must receive notice and an opportunity to raise credible concerns that they could face torture in the country to which they are being deported.

The Department of Homeland Security, however, has argued that assurances from destination countries that deportees will not be tortured are sufficient.

The Supreme Court’s latest decision allows the policy to continue while the justices prepare to hear the case on its merits.