Justices set December hearing on legality of removal policy
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request, allowing the government to resume deporting migrants to countries not named in their removal orders. The court’s brief order also set full oral argument on the policy’s legality for December.
The order stayed a lower-court ruling that had blocked the third-country removals. It did not explain the court’s reasoning for the stay, but directed both sides to argue whether lower courts had jurisdiction to rule on the issue and to order nationwide relief, and whether the Trump policy is lawful or violates the due process clause or conventions against torture. The three liberal justices objected to the stay.
Solicitor General John Sauer told the justices in court papers earlier this month that the third-country deportation policy amounted to “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.” In an emergency application filed Sept. 24, Sauer wrote: “While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the Nation does not.”
The administration has said it has used the policy to deport tens of thousands of noncitizens to Mexico and to countries in Africa and Latin America after the migrants’ home countries refused to accept them.
The National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which is representing migrants facing deportation, told the court in filings that its clients face significant harms. Lawyer Trina Realmuto wrote that “the record shows that class members removed without meaningful notice or an opportunity to present country-specific protection claims have faced prolonged and arbitrary detention, beatings and sexual assault, disappearance, and chain refoulement to countries from which the United States had already granted them protection.” Realmuto added: “These harms cannot be undone.”
The court’s Tuesday action marks the third time the justices have rejected efforts by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston to pause the deportations. Murphy’s rulings held that the deportations violate due process rights by failing to give detainees meaningful notice to raise arguments that they have credible fears of torture or abuse in the destination countries.
The Department of Homeland Security said Murphy’s rulings created logistical problems, including canceled flights, potential diplomatic clashes, and a lag in removing people convicted of assault and drug crimes.
The administration has argued that if a country has assured Secretary of State Marco Rubio that it will not engage in persecution or torture, that assurance should be enough to deport a noncitizen to a country that is not their own.
The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has previously recognized the president’s substantial authority over the border. Last summer, in a 6-to-3 decision, the court ruled that Trump has sweeping power to end the temporary protected status program for people who cannot return to their home countries because of wars and natural disasters.