Trump Administration: SCOTUS Appeal for Third-Country Removals

• The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow "third-country removals," deporting noncitizens to countries not in their removal orders.
• U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a 42-page request, arguing the government is deprived of an essential tool and seeking an immediate administrative stay.
• This marks the third time the administration has sought SCOTUS intervention on this issue, challenging orders by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy.
• Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson directed the noncitizens in the case to respond to the emergency appeal by 4 p.m. EDT on Monday, September 28.
• The dispute originated from a January 20 executive order by President Donald Trump instructing DHS to take all appropriate actions for noncitizen removals.

The Supreme Court's decision on the Trump administration's third-country removals request carries substantial implications for the scope of executive power in immigration enforcement and the rights of noncitizens facing deportation.

The Trump administration recently made an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking authorization to resume a controversial practice known as "third-country removals." This procedure involves deporting noncitizens to nations not explicitly designated in their official removal orders. The request, submitted by U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argued that the government is currently deprived of a vital mechanism for expelling certain noncitizens, including individuals identified as serious criminal offenders.

This marks the third instance in which the Trump administration has petitioned the Supreme Court to intervene in the ongoing legal battle surrounding these specific deportation methods. Sauer’s 42-page filing on Thursday afternoon additionally requested an immediate administrative stay. Such an order would permit the government to continue with these deportations while the justices deliberate on the broader merits of the administration's appeal.

Following the submission, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who holds initial oversight for emergency appeals originating from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit, issued a directive. She instructed the noncitizens involved in the case to submit their responses to the government's request by 4 p.m. EDT on Monday, September 28, setting a tight deadline for the opposing parties.

The administration's latest filing contends that the most recent judicial order prohibiting these third-country removals, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, is based on the same fundamentally flawed legal premises as previous rulings. This ongoing dispute over the legality of deportations to third-party countries has been a point of contention for over a year, tracing its origins back to a significant executive action.

The controversy first emerged in the wake of a January 20 executive order signed by President Donald Trump. This directive mandated that the Department of Homeland Security undertake "all appropriate actions" to facilitate the removal of noncitizens residing within the United States. The subsequent efforts to implement this order, particularly concerning the destination of deportees, have led to repeated legal challenges and the administration's persistent attempts to secure Supreme Court intervention.

The Supreme Court's decision on the Trump administration's third-country removals request carries substantial implications for the scope of executive power in immigration enforcement and the rights of noncitizens facing deportation. Should the Court grant the administrative stay or ultimately side with the government, it would significantly expand the options available to federal authorities for removing individuals from the country, potentially affecting a wide range of non-citizen clients.

The administration's assertion that it lacks an "essential tool" underscores its view of these deportations to third-party countries as critical to its immigration agenda. The outcome of this appeal, therefore, will not only determine the immediate fate of individuals subject to alien removal orders Supreme Court review but also shape future precedents for how the U.S. government can conduct deportations, particularly when the designated country is not the noncitizen's country of origin or last habitual residence.

Immigration lawyers should closely monitor the Supreme Court's decision on the requested administrative stay, as a ruling allowing third-country removals could immediately impact non-citizen clients facing deportation, requiring urgent advice on potential risks and legal strategies.

Source: Original reporting via SCOTUSblog