The U.S. Supreme Court has given the green light to a Trump-era immigration policy that allows deportations of certain migrants to countries other than their own, even without a detailed review of potential risks they might face in those destinations.
In a 6-3 decision, the Court overturned a lower ruling that had required immigration authorities to offer migrants a fair opportunity to explain why being sent to a third country could expose them to danger, such as torture or death.
The ruling affects eight migrants from countries including Myanmar, South Sudan, Mexico, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam. They were deported in May, with officials saying their plane was bound for South Sudan.
The Trump administration argued that the individuals represented high-risk cases, describing them as “the worst of the worst” and alleging involvement in crimes such as murder, arson, and armed robbery. However, attorneys for the migrants countered that many had no criminal records at all.
The case initially drew national attention after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston issued an order in April mandating that migrants must be granted a chance to explain any risks of harm they might face if deported to a third country. That decision has now been reversed by the nation’s highest court.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued a strong dissent, condemning the ruling as a blow to due process and humanitarian protection.
Justice Sotomayor, writing on behalf of the dissenters, expressed alarm at the majority’s stance: “The Court appears more comfortable allowing thousands to face violence abroad than ensuring they’re given the basic legal process our Constitution demands.”
The Department of Homeland Security welcomed the decision, calling it a step forward for national security. “Fire up the deportation planes,” said agency spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin.
Meanwhile, advocacy groups including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represented the migrants, denounced the outcome. The group called the ruling “horrifying,” arguing that it strips vulnerable individuals of the last opportunity to plead for protection.
The debate continues to stir strong emotions across legal and political circles, as the balance between immigration control and human rights remains under intense scrutiny.
