The Supreme Court on Tuesday paused a federal judge's ruling that had limited deportations to countries other than a migrant's own, SCOTUSblog reported. The unsigned order in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. lets those removals continue while the justices decide the case. The Court also agreed to hear arguments in early December. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the request, without written explanation.
How much warning a person gets before a flight to a country they have never lived in, and how much chance to object, now rests with nine justices.
The case is the longest-running court fight over the administration's use of third countries to take deportees. The Court paused an earlier order from the same judge in 2025. The Department of Homeland Security's general counsel put the number sent to third countries at more than 25,000 since February 2025, Axios reported. December's argument asks whether the guidance is lawful, and whether a district judge could set it aside.
- U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy entered final judgment in February 2026.
- The 1st Circuit largely upheld him Sept. 18 and lifted its stay Sept. 23.
- Murphy gave people who failed a torture screen 15 days to reopen cases.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked for the pause. Attorney General Todd Blanche and Homeland Security defend the policy. Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance represents the immigrants who sued. Those who feel the order first are people with final removal orders whose home countries will not take them back, and their families here.
Disputedwhether the government must give written notice and a real hearing on torture fears before sending a person to a third country.
The FramingsAdministration enforcement framing (Blanche, Homeland Security) presents third-country removals as "entirely lawful and a critical tool for immigration enforcement," needed to remove people, including criminals, whose home countries refuse them. Executive-authority framing (Sauer's application) presents the case as a limit on one district judge, arguing that "finding third countries willing and able to accept aliens is a delicate diplomatic endeavor." Immigrant-advocacy framing (Realmuto) presents the order as letting the government resume "sending people to third countries where they face persecution or torture." Procedural framing (the challengers' filing) presents the lower-court judgment as narrow: it "does not require release from detention, prohibit third-country removals, or undo existing arrangements."
The RecordThe pause and the grant of review are in the Court's order in No. 26A406. Murphy's judgment required written notice of the destination and a "meaningful opportunity" to raise a fear of torture, SCOTUSblog reported. The 25,000 figure comes from the government's own filing, as Axios and The Washington Post reported. Confidence that removals may resume now: certain. Confidence in any prediction of the December outcome: low.
What to watch: The December argument date. Whether Homeland Security restarts third-country flights before the term opens Monday, Oct. 5.
Sources: Axios, Fox News, SCOTUSblog, The Washington Post, Supreme Court of the United States (order in No. 26A406)