Supreme Court Revives Third-Country Deportation Policy
If you or someone you love has a final order of removal, this week’s Supreme Court decision may directly affect what happens next, and where you could be sent. On September 29, 2026, the Court cleared the way for the government to resume deporting immigrants to countries they have no connection to, a practice known as third-country removal, while it considers whether the policy is lawful. If you are facing deportation or need a Massachusetts immigration appeal lawyer to review your options, call Brooks Law Firm today at (617) 245-8090 for a free consultation.
The case is Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., and it began right here in Massachusetts. In an unsigned order, the Court’s six conservative justices stayed a federal judge’s ruling that had required the government to give people meaningful notice before sending them to a country that was not their own. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. The Court also granted full review of the case, with oral arguments expected in December 2026 and a final decision likely by the end of June 2027.
How Third-Country Deportations Work
Under federal immigration law, when someone receives a final order of removal, the government is generally supposed to return that person to their country of citizenship, or in some cases to a country they previously lived in. Third-country removal works differently. It sends a person to a country they may have never visited, based on a diplomatic agreement between the United States and the receiving government.
The Department of Homeland Security expanded its use of this practice in 2025. According to the Migration Policy Institute, roughly 15,000 people were deported to third countries that year alone. The destinations have included Mexico, countries in Latin America and Africa, and, in some instances, politically unstable nations like South Sudan and Libya.
The government has argued that third-country removals are necessary when a person’s home country refuses to accept them. For the individual being removed, however, the experience is very different: they may have no family, no language skills, and no knowledge of conditions in the place where they are sent. Immigrants who fear harm in an unfamiliar destination may have grounds to seek asylum or protection under the Convention Against Torture, but this ruling limits their ability to raise those claims before a removal happens.
What the Massachusetts Court Ruled
This case started in 2025 when D.V.D., a Cuban immigrant, and three other plaintiffs, including two Massachusetts residents, filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. They argued that the government was removing people to unfamiliar countries without telling them where they were going and without giving them a chance to raise concerns about persecution or torture in that destination.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy agreed. In February 2026, he issued a final judgment striking down the third-country removal policy. His ruling required the government to:
- Provide written notice to immigrants before any third-country removal, in a language they understand
- Identify the specific country the person would be sent to
- Give the person a meaningful opportunity to raise a claim for protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) related to that third country
Judge Murphy found that DHS had carried out removals without these basic protections and, in at least one instance involving flights to South Sudan, had violated an earlier court order in the same case.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit largely upheld Judge Murphy’s decision on September 18, 2026. Just days later, Attorney General Todd Blanche announced that the Department of Justice would appeal to the Supreme Court.
What the Supreme Court Did on September 29
The Supreme Court’s order did two things. First, it stayed Judge Murphy’s ruling, which means the lower court’s requirements for notice and the opportunity to contest third-country removal are no longer in effect while the case proceeds. The government can resume using its existing third-country removal procedures immediately.
Second, the Court treated the government’s emergency application as a petition for certiorari, meaning it agreed to hear full arguments on the merits rather than simply ruling on the emergency request. The justices directed both sides to brief several questions:
- Whether Judge Murphy’s court had jurisdiction to hear the case at all
- Whether the district court had authority to grant classwide relief under the Administrative Procedure Act
- Whether the government’s third-country removal guidance is unlawful under federal immigration statutes and the Due Process Clause
This is the third time the Supreme Court has intervened in this case to side with the government. The justices previously stayed an earlier preliminary injunction in June 2025 by the same 6-3 margin.
Why This Matters for Immigrants in Massachusetts
The practical effect is immediate. People with final orders of removal who cannot be returned to their home countries are once again at risk of being sent to a third country without advance notice and without a formal opportunity to argue that they fear persecution or torture there.
This is especially significant for immigrants from countries that have refused to accept deportees, including several nations in Latin America and the Caribbean. Brazilian and Hispanic communities in Massachusetts, many of whom have lived in the United States for years or even decades, may be affected if they have unresolved removal orders. For anyone in this situation, speaking with an immigration lawyer in Massachusetts as soon as possible is critical.
The ruling also matters because the underlying case originated in a Massachusetts federal court. The legal protections that Judge Murphy put in place were specifically designed to address what he found to be a pattern of removals carried out without adequate due process. Those protections are now suspended while the Supreme Court considers the case.
It is worth noting that the Court has not ruled on whether the policy is legal. The stay allows the government to continue the practice while the justices consider the merits. A final decision could reshape how the government handles deportations for years to come. The administration has also pursued other sweeping immigration policies this year, including a 75-country immigrant visa ban that Brooks Law Firm is actively challenging in federal court.
Who May Be Affected
This ruling may be relevant to you if:
- You have a final order of removal and your home country has refused to accept you or has no formal repatriation agreement with the United States
- You are in immigration detention and have been told you may be removed to a country other than your country of origin
- You have pending relief claims, such as asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the Convention Against Torture, that relate to conditions in a specific country
- A family member is in removal proceedings and you are unsure whether third-country deportation could apply to their case
What to Do Now
If you have an outstanding removal order, now is not the time to wait. The Supreme Court’s stay means the government can act quickly on third-country removals, and the people most at risk are those who have not yet reviewed their legal options with an attorney.
An immigration lawyer can assess whether you have any available defenses, including claims under the Convention Against Torture, motions to reopen, or applications for relief that may affect your removal. If you have already been ordered removed, an attorney can review whether your case qualifies for an appeal or other challenge. In some cases, a green card application or other pending petition may change the picture.
The December oral arguments will give the Supreme Court a chance to decide the legal questions at the center of this case. Until then, third-country deportations will continue under the government’s existing procedures.
Reach out to Brooks Law Firm today to schedule a free consultation, and we will give you an honest look at where you stand. Call (617) 245-8090 or contact us online.
Related Articles:
