The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted the Trump administration’s bid to enforce its policy on deporting immigrants to countries they aren’t from.
In addition to granting emergency relief over dissent from the court’s three Democratic appointees, the justices also said they would take up full review of the issue during the new court term, meaning a full decision on the matter is now expected by July.
The administration told the justices it needs the authority to remove dangerous criminals, while lawyers for immigrants said the government policy itself is dangerous and illegal, risking the lives of longtime U.S. residents who haven’t committed any crimes.
Noting that the justices had twice backed the administration in previous litigation on the third-country removal issue, Solicitor General John Sauer told the Supreme Court that a third helping was needed.
In his application to halt a district judge’s order against the government, Sauer said the administration had been deporting people under the policy for more than a year before a federal appeals court lifted a block on that order. He said the “unexpected springing-back” of the order “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.”
Opposing the federal government’s application, lawyers for immigrants said the administration ignored the “significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime U.S. residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there.”
They said third-country removals lead to “indefinite detention by foreign governments, chain refoulement, disappearance, and abuse in detention, including beatings, sexual assault, inhumane conditions, and being held incommunicado.” Chain refoulement is when someone is sent to a third country that then sends them to a country to which the U.S. was not allowed to send them directly.
The immigrants’ lawyers quoted a U.S. official as saying that the point of the third-country removal policy is “to scare people.”
Explaining the policy to the justices, Sauer said in his application that, when an immigrant has a court order preventing their removal to a certain country or countries for fear of being tortured or persecuted there, the government can quickly send them to another country that pledges not to persecute or torture anyone; or they can be sent to a country that does not give such assurances if the immigrant is first given notice of their removal and a chance to raise any fears of potential torture or persecution in that country.
Opposing the application, lawyers for immigrants said the policy violates federal law and constitutional due process protections. They said it doesn’t give people facing third-country removals sufficient notice of where they’d be sent or a meaningful chance to argue why they shouldn’t be sent there.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal newsletter for expert analysis on the top legal stories of the week, including updates from the Supreme Court and developments in the Trump administration’s legal cases.
The post Supreme Court backs Trump on third-country deportations over Democratic dissent appeared first on MS NOW.
