WASHINGTON — The Justice Department asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let the Trump administration continue its aggressive policy of deporting people to countries other than their own, seeking emergency action on a pillar of its immigration agenda.

The filing aims to lift a federal judge’s order barring deportation to a so-called third country unless migrants get notice and a meaningful chance to argue that they would be at risk of persecution or torture. A U.S. appeals court upheld the ruling and let it go into effect immediately.

The showdown comes amid reports that the administration has cut deals with dozens of countries to accept people who aren’t their own citizens. Many of the countries have notorious human rights records, according to a Sept. 18 New York Times story that described deported people being hooded and beaten at a remote hotel in Equatorial Guinea.

The Trump administration’s third-country deportations started as part of the crackdown on undocumented immigrants because of rules that prevent sending migrants to their home countries if they fear persecution or torture there.

Under the administration’s policy, migrants aren’t guaranteed any notice before they are shipped to a third country. In a June 2025 memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it will “generally wait at least 24 hours” before sending someone to a country that hasn’t disavowed persecution or torture.

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has already backed the administration twice during earlier stages of the litigation. The court in June 2025 lifted a preliminary order that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to be heard before they could be shipped to a third country.

The justices quickly reinforced that decision with a second order that let eight migrants be sent to South Sudan, a country that was on the State Department’s “Do Not Travel” list amid an armed conflict. Both rulings, which applied while the litigation continued, drew scathing dissents from the court’s liberals.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston has since issued a final ruling, saying that the administration’s policy of swift deportations ran afoul of both federal immigration law and the Constitution’s due process clause.

The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the ruling on Sept. 18 on a 3-0 vote.

“An individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Seth Aframe wrote for the panel.

____

(With assistance from Brian Dowling.)

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.