The Supreme Court on Tuesday allowed the Trump administration to resume removing people to countries other than the ones named in their deportation orders, pausing a lower-court judgment that required notice and a chance to raise fears of persecution or torture first, and agreed to hear the case in December.
The order is not a ruling on whether the policy is lawful. It puts a February 25 judgment on hold while the justices take up that question, in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
What the Supreme Court did
In an order list entry dated September 29, the Court granted the government’s application for a stay and stayed the judgment of U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts. It also treated the application as a petition for review, No. 26-426, and granted it, so the case will be argued rather than left with the lower courts.
Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the stay. The entry gives no reasons for the decision. The stay lasts until the Court’s judgment is sent down, meaning until the case is finished at the Supreme Court.
The questions the justices will decide
The order directs the parties to brief and argue four questions:
- Whether the district court had jurisdiction over the immigrants’ claims.
- Whether it had authority under 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1) to enter classwide declaratory relief and to set aside the guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act. The government reads that provision as barring classwide orders of this kind.
- Whether the government’s guidance on third-country removals is unlawful under the removal statute (8 U.S.C. 1231(b)), the Due Process Clause, or the federal law and regulations that carry out the Convention Against Torture.
- Any other questions the government considers appropriate for deciding the case.
The Clerk was directed to set a briefing schedule so the case can be argued in the December 2026 argument session. The order does not say when a decision will come.
What changes while the case is pending
Murphy’s judgment had declared the March 2025 DHS guidance unlawful and said class members were entitled to “meaningful notice” and a “meaningful opportunity” to raise a country-specific fear claim before removal. The First Circuit largely upheld that judgment on September 18. With the judgment stayed, the requirements it imposed are on hold while the Supreme Court considers the case.
The guidance the government defended lets DHS proceed without added steps when a receiving country has given assurances the State Department finds credible. When there are no such assurances, officers give notice of the destination and generally wait at least 24 hours, as covered in our earlier report.
The government said in its application that DHS canceled a flight carrying 70 people with criminal convictions to three countries and pulled nearly 150 people from flights to at least four countries after the appeals court lifted its own stay. Those figures are the government’s, not independently verified.
The immigrants’ lawyers argued in their opposition filed September 28 that denying a stay would not stop third-country removals. In their account, it would only require the government to give notice and a real opportunity to raise a fear claim first.
The third time the Court has weighed in
The Court sided with the government twice before in this litigation. On June 23, 2025, it stayed Murphy’s preliminary injunction over a dissent by Sotomayor joined by Kagan and Jackson, and on July 3, 2025 it clarified that the stay also covered his later remedial order. Those orders paused the case pending appeal. Tuesday’s order goes further by putting the legal questions themselves before the justices.
What happens next
Briefing will run through the fall ahead of December arguments. Until the Court rules, the stay keeps the district court judgment from taking effect.
The protections at issue connect to two forms of relief that bar sending a person to a country where they face harm: protection under the Convention Against Torture and Withholding of removalProtection that bars removal to a particular country where a person's life or freedom would be threatened, or where torture is more likely than not. The judge still issues a removal order, the protection does not lead to a green card, and DHS may be able to remove the person to a third country.See it in the glossary. For background on how emergency orders like this one work, see What Happens When the Supreme Court Takes an Immigration Case?