DHS: Files Supreme Court Application for Third-Country Removals

• The Department of Homeland Security has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to resume third-country immigrant removals.
• This request seeks to overturn a Massachusetts federal court order, upheld by the First Circuit, which found the policy violates due process rights.
• The government argues the injunction creates logistical chaos and that deportees already had opportunities to challenge their removals.
• Critics, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, assert the policy is unlawful and puts individuals at risk in dangerous third countries.
• The policy has resulted in thousands of deportations to Mexico and 35 other nations, including countries with State Department travel warnings and reports of abuse.

The Supreme Court's decision on this emergency application will immediately impact the legality and operational status of third-country removals, directly affecting immigration lawyers' ability to challenge such deportations on due process grounds for clients.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has formally requested the U.S. Supreme Court to permit the continuation of its policy allowing the deportation of immigrants to countries other than their birth nations. This emergency application, filed on Thursday by the Trump administration, seeks to overturn a Massachusetts federal court order from February that deemed the third-country removal policy a violation of due process rights. The Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals had upheld this federal court decision just the day before, on Wednesday, despite the government's pending appeal to the nation's highest court.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the government, argued that the unexpected reversal has created significant logistical challenges for ongoing removal operations. He cited a specific instance where a flight carrying 70 immigrants with criminal convictions to three separate countries had to be canceled. Sauer urged the Supreme Court to issue an immediate administrative stay to prevent further disruption while it considers the application, asserting that the government should have been allowed to file a response to the motion before the initial injunction was granted. The administration's request highlights its determination to continue these deportations, which it views as a critical component of its immigration enforcement strategy.

The government's application to the Supreme Court follows a prior ruling by the high court last year, which had allowed third-country removals to proceed under the condition that receiving nations provide blanket assurances against persecuting or torturing deportees. Under this framework, the government has been conducting such removals for over 15 months, with Solicitor General Sauer indicating that thousands of detainees have already been removed and thousands more are eligible. The government contends that the noncitizens challenging the policy have already received final removal orders, implying they had a prior opportunity to contest their deportations and therefore cannot establish irreparable harm.

Conversely, attorney Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance emphasized the First Circuit's clear stance that the government's third-country removal policy is unlawful. She underscored that class members are entitled to meaningful notice regarding the third countries they might be sent to, as well as a genuine opportunity to raise fear-based claims. Realmuto noted that the administration's appeal to the Supreme Court was not surprising, given its public and repeated statements about its intent to continue sending individuals to third countries where they may face horrific and potentially life-threatening conditions. The lower court's order, requiring notice and an opportunity to object to torture or persecution, has significantly hampered the government's ability to remove detainees and disrupted its agreements with foreign nations.

The third-country deportation policy has seen the vast majority of deportees sent to Mexico. However, under a series of what are described as "costly agreements" with other nations, thousands of additional individuals have been deported to 35 different countries. These destinations include nations like the Central African Republic, a country that the U.S. Department of State explicitly warns its citizens not to travel to due to its dangerous conditions.

Further concerns regarding the policy's implementation have emerged, with an Associated Press report earlier this month detailing allegations from lawyers for two men deported to Equatorial Guinea. These individuals were reportedly beaten and held at gunpoint in a hotel converted into a detention center, as part of a $7.5 million deal with the African nation. This third-country removal policy is one of several mass deportation measures undertaken by the Trump administration as part of its broader crackdown on immigration, making the Supreme Court's decision on this emergency application a critical point for immigration lawyers monitoring its immediate impact on the legality and operational status of such removals.

Immigration lawyers must closely monitor the Supreme Court's decision on this emergency application, as it will immediately impact the legality and operational status of third-country removals, directly affecting their ability to challenge such deportations on due process grounds for clients.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News