The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 22, 2026, agreed to hear oral arguments in early December over the Trump administration's practice of deporting immigrants to countries not named in their removal orders. In an unsigned order released Tuesday afternoon, the justices paused a district court injunction against so-called third-country removals while the merits case moves forward.

What did the court order?

The unsigned order cleared the way for DHS to continue removing noncitizens to nations not identified in their removal orders until the justices resolve the dispute, a decision likely to come in 2027. The court directed the parties to brief questions on the legality of the DHS guidance and whether U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of the District of Massachusetts had authority to consider the immigrants' claims. It also invited briefing on any "other questions that the Government determines are appropriate for the proper disposition of the case."

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they would have denied the government's request to block Murphy's order. The three Democratic appointees offered no written explanation for their position.

What is the procedural history?

This marks the third time Solicitor General D. John Sauer has asked the justices to intervene against Murphy. The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., traces back to President Donald Trump's January 2025 executive order directing DHS to take "all appropriate actions" against noncitizens subject to removal.

DHS then instructed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to weigh whether undocumented immigrants with deportation orders could be sent to countries other than their countries of origin when those origin countries posed torture risks. A follow-up DHS memorandum required notice to immigrants, an opportunity to voice torture fears, and a screening when the receiving country had not provided assurances against torture.

Four immigrants with removal orders sued in federal court in Massachusetts in March 2025. Murphy barred the government from removing them and similarly situated noncitizens to third countries without written notice, a "meaningful opportunity" to challenge the removal, and a determination that any torture fears were "reasonable" rather than "more likely than not." Immigrants unable to meet that threshold must receive at least 15 days to seek reopening of their proceedings.

In February 2026, Murphy issued a final judgment striking down the third-country removal policy. He reaffirmed the right to "meaningful notice" and a "meaningful opportunity" to contest removal on persecution or torture grounds.

What did the appellate court decide?

On Sept. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit largely upheld Murphy's ruling. Five days later, on Sept. 23, the appellate court dissolved a March 16, 2026 order that had kept Murphy's judgment on hold during the government's appeal. The dissolution triggered Sauer's third Supreme Court filing.

In his Sept. 24 stay application, Sauer contended that Murphy's order robbed the government of "an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens." He added that reinstatement of the injunction "created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations—including the cancellation of flights—and led to added expense, potential diplomatic issues, and the inability to remove dangerous criminals."

The immigrants countered that Murphy's decision "does not prevent third-country removals; rather, it simply requires" the administration "to do so lawfully." They argued any harm the government suffers is "neither irreparable nor caused by" Murphy's order, because his injunction does not require release from detention or "undo existing arrangements."

What does the ruling change for practitioners?

For immigration practitioners the immediate effect is continuity. DHS may continue removing noncitizens to countries not specified in their removal orders during the interim period. Practitioners advising clients facing removal should expect ongoing uncertainty through the December argument and a merits decision that will follow.

The court has signaled it will resolve three distinct questions: the validity of the DHS guidance, the scope of district court authority, and any additional issues the government flags. That expanded briefing request suggests the justices may use the case to address more than the narrow stay question.

Earlier in the litigation, the court paused Murphy's order on June 23, 2025, over a dissent by Sotomayor joined by Kagan and Jackson. A brief opinion on July 3, 2025, clarified that the June 23 order paused Murphy's order "in full" and extended to a later ruling on South Sudan removals. Kagan, concurring, wrote that she did "not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed." Sotomayor again dissented, joined by Jackson.