The U.S. Supreme Court granted the Trump administration’s request to pause a lower court injunction that had blocked deportations of migrants to third countries without prior notice. The 6–3 decision, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting, represents a temporary win for the administration’s immigration agenda.

The case centered on migrants contesting deportations to nations other than their home countries. Earlier, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston had ruled that migrants must remain in U.S. custody until they receive a “reasonable fear interview,” allowing them to explain any fears of persecution or torture. Murphy clarified that his order did not block deportations entirely but required the government to comply with constitutional due process.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the Court that Murphy’s injunction had hindered deportations of individuals deemed security risks. The government maintained that delays prevented enforcement of removal orders, while migrants’ lawyers argued that deporting people without due process violated constitutional protections.

The administration had reportedly transferred some migrants to South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and other countries, prompting legal challenges. Judges across several jurisdictions had found that officials failed to provide adequate notice before removals, a practice the Supreme Court has narrowly rebuked multiple times.

White House officials defended the Court’s decision as a matter of national security, while critics viewed it as a setback for human rights. Officials praised the ruling as restoring enforcement authority, whereas advocates for migrants warned it endangered individuals who may face harm abroad.

Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance said the decision undermines crucial legal safeguards meant to prevent deportation to unsafe conditions. She vowed to continue litigation to restore protections, emphasizing that due process remains a cornerstone of U.S. law.