<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/supreme-court/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> allowed the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/trump-administration/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">Trump administration</a> to continue to deport <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/tag/illegal-immigrants/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">illegal immigrants</a> to third countries while setting oral arguments in the case for December.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The court ruled 6-3 to halt a ruling by a federal district judge in Massachusetts that blocked the administration’s framework for quickly deporting illegal immigrants with final removal orders to countries other than their country of origin, referred to as “third countries.” The federal district court judge raised concerns about immigration officials not allowing illegal immigrants to present fears of torture or persecution regarding the third country to which they would be deported. This ruling was upheld by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/justice/4741294/todd-blanche-vows-supreme-court-appeal-third-country-deportations/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">First Circuit</a> earlier this month.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson expressed that they would have declined the Department of Justice’s request to halt the lower court’s ruling. The majority did not provide an explanation for its decision.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">While the Supreme Court granted the DOJ’s emergency petition to allow third-country deportations to continue, it announced that it would hear the case for full-merits arguments during its December oral argument session.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The brief order from the Supreme Court requested both sides to file briefs addressing whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear the claims from the illegal immigrants, or if the lower court had the authority to issue the order blocking the policy, as well as whether the Trump administration’s third-country deportation policy violates federal law.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Supreme Court could hear arguments in <em>Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.</em> on either Nov. 30, Dec. 1, Dec. 2, Dec. 7, Dec. 8, or Dec. 9, with a ruling expected by the end of June 2027. The unsigned order stated that the policy would remain in effect until a ruling following oral arguments is issued.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">The Trump administration has had various immigration cases reach the Supreme Court, <a href="https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court/4627396/trump-winning-streak-supreme-court-could-end-birthright-decision/" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">winning every case</a> except the birthright citizenship case during the last term.</p>
<p class="wp-block-paragraph">During the next Supreme Court term, the justices are set to address a case with significant implications for asylum-seekers alongside the challenge to third-country deportations. The court may also consider a challenge to the administration’s mandatory detention policy for illegal immigrants, which has divided appeals courts across the country.</p>