The U.S. Supreme Court on September 29, 2026, again allowed the Trump administration to continue deporting noncitizens to third countries where they have no prior connections — this time without a single word of explanation, and over the dissents of Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The same day, the Court granted certiorari in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. and instructed that the case be argued in December. Until it rules — likely months later — removals to countries such as South Sudan, Eswatini, Uganda, Rwanda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic, Cameroon, Burundi and Sierra Leone may continue.

The decision is the third chapter in a litigation saga that began in spring 2025.

What does the September 29 order actually do?

The Court granted the government's emergency stay of a Boston federal district court order that had declared third-country removals unlawful. Judge Brian E. Murphy had granted summary judgment for the challengers, finding that DHS guidance violated statutory requirements for removal destinations and denied required notice and hearings for fear-based claims under the Convention Against Torture.

The district court's declaratory judgment held that the government must first seek removal to a class member's designated country of removal or specified alternatives, and that class members have:

• the right to "meaningful notice before removal to any third country"; and
• the right to "a meaningful opportunity to raise a country-specific claim against removal before removal to any third country."

Judge Murphy also vacated the DHS and ICE memos authorizing third-country removals. On September 18, 2026, the First Circuit affirmed, except for the obligation to first seek removal to non-third-party countries. The Supreme Court's stay, pending the government's appeal, renders that relief unenforceable for now.

What questions will the Court hear in December?

The certiorari grant directs briefing and argument on four questions:

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the respondents' claims.
2. Whether the district court had authority to enter classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur.
3. Whether the government's third-country removal guidance is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), the Due Process Clause, or international law and its implementing regulations.
4. "Other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case."

That fourth question is unusual: it lets the government add whatever issues it wants the Court to decide.

How did the earlier rulings unfold?

The dispute first reached the Court on its emergency docket in spring 2025, after Judge Murphy issued a preliminary injunction blocking removals to any "country not explicitly provided for on the alien's order of removal" without written notice and a "meaningful opportunity for the alien to raise a fear of return for eligibility for CAT protections." The First Circuit upheld that injunction.

On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed it anyway, with no opinion from the Court or any justice in the majority. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. She wrote: "In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach."

Her dissent recounted that the government "wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there," and that "in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel."

She called the Court's intervention "so gross an abuse of the Court's equitable discretion" and concluded: "Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers."

On July 3, 2025, after the district court tried to keep its order alive for six individuals, the Court granted the government's motion for clarification, saying the district court's "remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable." Justice Kagan concurred but reiterated her disagreement with the earlier ruling. Sotomayor dissented again, joined by Jackson, writing that "the Fifth Amendment, immigration law, federal regulations, and this Court's precedent unambiguously prohibit such no-notice deportations."

Her closing line was blunt: "Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial." The individuals were then deported to South Sudan.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

For now, the government may lawfully effect third-country removals while the merits remain undecided, and any classwide declaratory relief or APA vacatur ordering otherwise is unenforceable. Immigration counsel can no longer rely on Murphy's injunction to obtain notice-and-hearing protections for clients facing removal to unfamiliar third countries; the only live avenue is individual litigation on the merits questions the Court will consider in December. Practitioners should track the § 1231(b)(2)(E) argument closely: the statute permits removal to "another country whose government will accept the alien" only "[i]f impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible" to remove the person to each previously listed country — language both lower courts read as making third countries a last resort.

Why the emergency docket drew criticism

In both the June 23, 2025, order and the September 29, 2026, order, the six-justice majority gave no explanation for staying detailed lower-court opinions. The Court has previously declared that it "will grant a stay pending appeal only under extraordinary circumstances."

The balance of equities favors pausing third-country deportations until the lawfulness question is decided, critics argue: deportation can cause irreversible harm, while delay leaves individuals detained in the United States or removable to legally permitted countries.

The Court will hear argument in December and issue a decision weeks or months later. Until then, the administration may continue the practice the district court found illegal.