The Briefing:
- The Supreme Court is weighing, for the third time, whether to let the Trump administration resume "third-country" deportations while a legal fight over migrant notice rights plays out. Migrants' attorneys must respond by September 28.
- Solicitor General D. John Sauer has taken the unusual step of asking Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to send the request to the full nine-member Court rather than decide it herself, since she has sided against the administration in this case twice before.
- Independent trackers put the number of people removed to third countries at more than 25,000 since January 2025, sent to somewhere between 29 and 35 nations under deals the government has largely kept out of public view.
A deportation flight bound for three African nations never left the tarmac in Alexandria, Louisiana. Hours before it was set to depart on September 23, attorneys for the roughly 70 people booked onto it — all carrying criminal convictions, the government says — learned from separate sources that removals were imminent and raced to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals late that night. Within hours, the appellate panel lifted the pause that had let deportations continue during its review, and the flight was called off.
The Trump Administration Turns to the Supreme Court Again
The administration is now asking the nation's highest court to make sure a flight cancellation like that never happens again. It's a request the government has made twice before in this same legal fight, and both times the justices sided with the government.
When a migrant's home country refuses to take them back, or U.S. officials would rather not send them there, Immigration and Customs Enforcement can instead place them on a flight to a nation with no connection to their case at all. Tracking compiled by Third Country Deportation Watch, a joint effort from Human Rights First and Refugees International, shows people sent this way to destinations spanning Costa Rica, Guatemala, Eswatini, Uganda and South Sudan. Most of these arrangements are struck quietly, under agreements Washington has not made public.
One of the smaller deals shows how far the practice has spread. Palau, a Pacific island nation of fewer than 18,000 residents, agreed in December 2025 to accept as many as 75 deportees in exchange for $7.5 million in U.S. assistance, according to terms confirmed by both governments. Yet a September investigation found only three people had actually been transferred there. The first arrival, in late May, left the island within two weeks of touching down, according to Palauan officials.
Two Different Tallies of a Fast-Growing Program
How many people has this policy moved so far? The answer depends on who's counting. The Human Rights First and Refugees International tracker puts the figure at more than 25,000 people sent to 29 third countries as of early September. A separate, newer count from the Forbidden Stories journalism consortium, published this month, documented at least 25,447 removals across 35 countries through August 31, tied to roughly $410 million the government has committed to receiving nations and aid organizations. Neither figure has been disputed by the administration, which has confirmed the general scale without releasing its own accounting.
How the Case Reached the Supreme Court a Third Time
The dispute has moved through three levels of the federal courts for more than a year.
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ordered the Department of Homeland Security to give migrants written notice of a proposed third-country destination, plus a genuine chance to raise fears of persecution or torture there. That June, a divided Supreme Court paused Murphy's order 6-3, with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson dissenting; days later the Court granted a narrower follow-up request tied to men then detained on a U.S. base in Djibouti. Murphy issued his final ruling in February 2026, declaring the government's notice process unlawful, and the 1st Circuit paused that ruling in March while it reviewed the government's appeal.
Then, on September 18, a three-judge 1st Circuit panel — in an opinion authored by Judge Seth Aframe — largely upheld Murphy's ruling, narrowing only one piece of it on procedural grounds. Five days later, the court lifted its own pause entirely, putting the ruling into immediate effect and forcing the cancellation of the Louisiana flight. Solicitor General Sauer filed the government's third emergency application with the Supreme Court on September 24 and 25.
A New Wrinkle: Should Jackson Decide Alone?
Justice Jackson, who handles emergency matters arising from the 1st Circuit, has not granted the administration an immediate administrative stay. Instead, she ordered migrants' attorneys to respond by September 28, meaning removals stay on hold for now. Notably, Sauer's filing took an unusual extra step: rather than simply asking Jackson to rule, he asked her to refer the matter to the full nine-member Court if she isn't inclined to grant a stay herself — a request that reflects the fact that Jackson has voted against the government both previous times this case reached the justices.
Attorney General Todd Blanche called the 1st Circuit's ruling an action taken "in the dark of night" that stripped the government of a legal enforcement tool. DHS General Counsel James Percival went further, describing third-country removals as an "essential public safety tool" and confirming the roughly 25,000-deportation figure himself. In the Court filing, Sauer argued the notice requirement would delay removals no matter how weak a migrant's fear claim might be, and warned it could unravel diplomatic arrangements negotiated with dozens of governments.
Migrants' Lawyers Say the Order Speaks for Itself
Attorneys for the migrants read the situation very differently. Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance told reporters the appeals court's order "makes crystal clear no flights or buses should carry out third-country removals" while the case remains pending.
Court filings and interviews describe consequences that go well beyond legal argument. Lawyers for two men deported to Equatorial Guinea say police covered their heads with bags, beat them and held them at gunpoint inside a hotel converted into a detention facility. Separately, a Human Rights Watch investigation published in May documented Cuban nationals routed through Mexico and left without money, identification or belongings — many trapped in legal limbo because Cuba won't accept them back. "They're casting us aside to die," one 58-year-old deportee, identified by researchers only as Harold A., said.
What Legal Options Remain for Migrants
For people who already hold a grant of withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, the fight isn't necessarily over — that protection can still be used to challenge a specific third-country destination, separate from any claim tied to their home country. Attorneys with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance are urging families to put a fear claim in writing the moment a destination is named, since verbal notice of a flight can arrive as little as an hour before departure.
What Happens Next
For now, third-country removals remain paused nationwide. Migrants' attorneys have until 4 p.m. on September 28 to respond to the government's request, after which the full Supreme Court will decide whether to grant a stay while the broader appeal continues. Given the emergency posture of the filing, a decision could arrive within days of that deadline — one that will determine whether written-notice protections survive, or whether ICE regains the ability to move quickly with, families and attorneys warn, little room left to object.
