WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for the Trump administration to resume deporting certain noncitizens to “third countries” that are not named in their removal orders, staying a lower-court judgment while the justices schedule December oral arguments, according to SCOTUSblog, NBC News, and CNBC.
In a brief unsigned order, the court granted the Justice Department’s emergency request and put on hold the February 2026 final judgment by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who had struck down the Department of Homeland Security’s third-country removal guidance. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay.
Murphy had ruled that before someone can be sent to a third country, they must receive meaningful notice and a meaningful chance to contest the destination based on fear of persecution or torture. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld that ruling in mid-September; after a pause, the appellate decision took effect around Sept. 23, prompting the administration’s rush to the high court.
The justices treated the stay application as a petition for certiorari and agreed to hear Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. Questions include whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether it could issue class-wide relief under immigration statutes, and whether the DHS guidance violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), due process, or treaty-based torture protections. Argument is set for the December 2026 session; a merits decision is expected sometime in 2027.
Since Trump’s second term began in January 2025, thousands of people have been removed to third countries including South Sudan, Eswatini, Rwanda, Uganda, and others, NBC and CNBC reported. Immigration advocates argue many destinations are unsafe and that secretive diplomatic arrangements leave people without a real chance to object. The administration contends rapid removals are lawful tools when return to a home country is not feasible.
This is not the court’s first intervention in the dispute: last year it also allowed third-country removals to proceed at earlier stages, including clarifying that its order covered men the government sought to send to South Sudan. Tuesday’s stay restores operational authority to DHS while litigation continues.
Advocacy organizations argue the stay immediately exposes people already in removal proceedings to transfers toward countries where they lack family, language skills, or safe reception arrangements. Government lawyers counter that immigration statutes authorize the executive to designate alternative removal countries when the home country will not accept a returnee, and that individualized fear screenings remain available under separate conventions when properly raised.
Because the court scheduled December arguments and kept the stay in place until its judgment is sent down, DHS can operationalize third-country removals through the fall midterms and winter unless Congress legislates or the justices later dissolve the stay — neither of which is signaled in Tuesday’s brief order.
Based on SCOTUSblog (Amy Howe), NBC News, and CNBC coverage of the Sept. 29, 2026 order. Case caption and briefing questions as summarized from the court’s order reporting.