The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on June 27, 2025, in Trump v. CASA, Inc., lifting key restraints on the Trump administration's practice of deporting non-citizens to countries with no prior connection to them. Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the majority; Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The consolidated cases — Trump v. CASA, Trump v. Washington, and Trump v. New Jersey — turned on the administration's effort to remove migrants to countries such as South Sudan, Panama, and El Salvador, often with limited advance notice and without a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-based claims.

What did the Court actually decide?

The majority held that federal district courts cannot issue universal or nationwide injunctions. That procedural holding produced a sweeping practical effect: it vacated the broad injunction that U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had entered in Maryland, clearing the way for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to resume third-country removals paused since April 2025.

Barrett wrote that a federal court's equitable authority reaches only the parties before it. The decision, however, leaves open the substantive question of whether the removals themselves comply with immigration statutes and the Convention Against Torture.

What did the dissent say?

Sotomayor's dissent accused the majority of greenlighting a practice that exposes migrants to torture. She warned that the ruling would leave plaintiffs with no forum capable of granting complete relief and called the consequence a transfer of unchecked power to the executive branch.

Who brought the challenge?

The American Civil Liberties Union sued on behalf of CASA Inc., a Maryland-based immigrant-services organization. State attorneys general from Washington and New Jersey filed parallel actions. The plaintiffs argued that expedited removals to third countries violated the Immigration and Nationality Act and the United States' non-refoulement obligations.

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

Immigration lawyers must now assume that a single district-court decision will not halt a federal immigration policy nationwide. Litigation will fragment across jurisdictions, with each court able to grant relief only to the specific plaintiffs before it. Class certification and multi-district joinder will become the principal vehicles for coordinated relief.

The decision also resets the notice-and-review procedures governing third-country removals. Department of Homeland Security guidance issued in May 2025 permitted removals with as little as 24 hours' notice, a window practitioners have called unworkable for assembling fear-based claims.

For detained clients, emergency stays to the Supreme Court itself may become the only immediate remedy — a path Sotomayor characterized as leaving affected migrants with little practical protection.

What happens next?

The Court remanded the underlying claims for further proceedings. The administration retains discretion to designate any country as a removal destination, provided it secures diplomatic assurances against torture — assurances that human-rights organizations have repeatedly questioned.

The ruling does not address the substantive lawfulness of third-country removals. That question returns to the lower courts for adjudication on a case-by-case basis, with hundreds of individual cases likely to refile in district courts across the country within weeks.

For corporate immigration counsel and removal-defense practitioners, the operational task is immediate: recalibrate filing strategy, identify affected clients in detention, and prepare for a wave of new litigation that the Supreme Court's structural decision will, by design, disperse across the federal docket.

---

Case reference: Trump v. CASA, Inc., No. 24A931, 606 U.S. ___ (2025) (consolidated with Trump v. Washington and Trump v. New Jersey).

Decided: June 27, 2025.

Deciding body: U.S. Supreme Court.