Supreme Court lets Trump resume third-country deportations before final ruling

One man challenging the deportation policy fears being sent somewhere he cannot get treatment for his severe mental illness. The Supreme Court has now allowed the policy to resume while it considers the legal challenge—a decision that could put removal ahead of an answer about the policy’s legality. NPR reported the unnamed man’s fear on September 30; his proposed destination and eventual outcome are not established. ¹

On September 29, 2026, the justices temporarily cleared the Trump administration to deport migrants to countries not identified in their removal orders. They also agreed to hear the case, with full oral arguments scheduled for December. The administration has won permission to proceed for now, not a final ruling that its policy is lawful. ^{2 3}

That distinction is the heart of this development. A stay is temporary in the court’s calendar. For someone transported beyond the United States’ borders before the case is decided, its consequences may not be.

The case is Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., docket 26-426, with stay application 26A406. The Court suspended the February 25 order and judgment issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts. Its operative language leaves little ambiguity about what was paused: “The February 25, 2026 order and judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, case No. 1:25-cv-10676, are stayed.” ^{3 24}

The justices also treated the application as a petition for certiorari and granted it, meaning they will review the dispute themselves. The Court gave no explanation for granting the stay. NPR reported that three liberal justices objected; their identities and any separate written reasoning are not established in the available accounts. Justice Jackson received the application and referred it to the full Court, but that procedural role does not identify her vote. ^{3 2}

The dispute concerns notice and a meaningful chance to explain why a new destination could expose someone to persecution or torture. Having a removal order does not, by itself, settle whether removal to a particular country would expose that person to a prohibited danger. The contested procedures are supposed to address that second question before departure. ^{26 2}

The February judgment addressed the government’s motion to dismiss and the migrants’ motion for partial summary judgment. The September 18 account described a unanimous appellate panel comprising Judges Montecalvo, Howard and Aframe, with Aframe writing the opinion. But the precise portions affirmed or modified, notice periods, interview standards and deadlines cannot be verified from the available substantive record. The Supreme Court stayed the February order and judgment as a whole—not merely a separately identified waiting period. ^{24 25 28 3}

At the Supreme Court, the argument will concern both the policy and the courts’ power to intervene. The first question granted for review asks: “Whether the district court had jurisdiction over Respondents’ claims.” The second asks whether it could enter “classwide declaratory relief and APA vacatur” under 8 U.S.C. §1252(f)(1). In plain terms: could the district court hear the challenge, and could it grant relief for a class or set aside the agency policy under the Administrative Procedure Act? ¹⁸

The legality question includes immigration law, specifically §1231(b), and constitutional due process; NPR also reports that anti-torture protections are at issue. Whether a policy violates those protections is distinct from which court can hear the challenge and what remedy it can provide. The complete wording of the final question is not established here. ^{7 2}

On August 28, 2026, HeyDay News reported that more than 23,000 people had been deported to countries they were not from. The largest group went to Mexico; over 330 went to Africa, described then as mainly to the Central African Republic. That report also described people with court protection against removal to their home countries.

On August 31, we reported that internal U.S. government documents obtained by CBS News described more than 100 people flown to eight African countries on three flights within ten days. None were nationals of the countries receiving them. Those were August snapshots, not current September totals. The change now is the Supreme Court’s intervention and its agreement to review the dispute; our earlier reports did not establish a final judicial determination that the campaign was lawful.

There is no common counting period or exact updated total that would let us calculate additional removals from those figures. Adding the administration’s claim to our August reporting would produce a number without a sound basis.

For the migrants challenging the policy, the danger is that removal happens before they can meaningfully explain why the destination is unsafe. Trina Realmuto, their lawyer at the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, described allegations in court papers of assault, detention, disappearance and chain refoulement following removals without meaningful notice, NPR reported September 29. These are allegations, not findings made by the Supreme Court’s order. ²

Chain refoulement means an initial receiving country sends a person onward to another country where they face prohibited danger. The filings describe people allegedly returned through that chain to countries from which the United States had already granted them protection. The available reporting does not establish the identity, destination, timing or outcome of every individual case. ²

The unnamed man’s fear about psychiatric treatment brings the notice dispute into especially sharp focus. It is his stated fear—not a verified finding that a particular country would deny him care. But notice is more than an administrative formality if it determines whether someone can raise a threat to their safety or necessary treatment before being sent away. ¹

The immediate legal barrier has been removed. The questions it was meant to address have not been answered.

NPR, September 30 Up First newsletter. ¹ NPR, September 29 report on third-country deportations. ² Supreme Court, September 29 miscellaneous order. ³

SCOTUSblog, report on the grant of review. ⁴ NBC News, report on temporary permission for the policy. ⁵ SCOTUSblog, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. case page. ⁶ Courthouse News, copy of the Supreme Court order. ⁷

CNBC, report on resuming deportations. ⁸ POLITICO, September 29 report. ⁹ Roll Call, report on deportations during litigation. ¹⁰ LAist, Carrie Johnson/NPR republication. ¹¹ CBS News, report on the policy’s temporary revival. ¹²

SCOTUSblog, administration’s request for relief. ¹³ NPR, September 30 interview report. ¹⁴ SCOTUSblog, migrants’ response to the stay request. ¹⁵ Human Rights Research, appellate-policy account. ¹⁶ Christian News Alerts, administration’s Supreme Court request. ¹⁷

Supreme Court, questions presented in 26-426. ¹⁸ Supreme Court, merits docket 26-426. ¹⁹ Law Commentary, report on the stay and review. ²⁰ Government stay reply. ²¹ Government stay application. ²² Supreme Court, application docket 26A406. ²³

District court, February 25 final judgment, Document 242. ²⁴ First Circuit record, Document 254. ²⁵ District court, February 25 memorandum and order, Document 241. ²⁶ Law.co, D.V.D. case page. ²⁷ Capture Cascade, September 18 appellate account. ²⁸

District court, August 28, 2025 filing, Document 212. ²⁹ CourtListener copy of Document 241. ³⁰ District court, earlier temporary restraining order, Document 40. ³¹ Government stay-application appendix. ³²

PBS News, report on removals during Supreme Court consideration. ³³ Los Angeles Times, report on resumption pending review. ³⁴ Georgia Public Broadcasting, Carrie Johnson/NPR republication. ³⁵ Political.org, report on the interim decision. ³⁶