Third Country Deportations Have Reached the Supreme Court

Attorney General Todd Blanche said on September 24 that the Trump administration would seek immediate Supreme Court relief after a federal appeals court blocked third-country removals. Reuters reported that the administration filed an emergency request asking the justices to let it continue deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them a chance to show the harm they might face.

The dispute follows the First Circuit's decision in D.V.D. v. Department of Homeland Security. In an opinion issued on September 18, the court largely upheld a lower court ruling that found the Department of Homeland Security's third-country removal policy unlawful. Migrants facing removal to a country not named in their order must receive effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise claims of persecution or torture.

The appeals court's Wednesday night order put that judgment into effect. Blanche called the policy an important tool for immigration enforcement and said the government would ask the Supreme Court to intervene, which has previously granted a stay in the same case. The administration says lower court orders have disrupted arrangements with countries willing to accept deportees who are not their citizens.

The constitutional issue is straightforward. A removal order cannot become a moving target after the government changes the destination. Giving a person notice of the country and a real chance to raise a protection claim is a basic condition of lawful state power, not a favour granted by an agency.

Congress should write the process clearly if it wants third-country removals to continue. The rules should require written notice, a defined period to respond, a record that courts can review and a prompt decision on Convention Against Torture claims. That would give immigration officers a workable mandate and give the public confidence that enforcement is operating under law rather than improvisation.