Immigration lawyers are urging the U.S. Supreme Court to leave in place a lower court order that bars the government from deporting individuals to countries they are not originally from without due process. The case, which has drawn attention due to its potential impact on thousands of immigrants, concerns the government’s third-country removal practices, which are being challenged as violations of international law.
The Legal Battle
The dispute stems from a case involving the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), where immigration attorneys are pushing back against an emergency request by the Trump administration to stay a lower court ruling that prohibits third-country deportations. These deportations involve sending immigrants to countries they are not from, where they could face persecution or even death without the opportunity to contest their deportation. The plaintiffs in the case argue that the Trump administration’s actions violate international law, specifically the Convention Against Torture (CAT), which prohibits sending people to countries where they may face torture or inhumane treatment.
The motion filed by immigration lawyers on June 2 responds to the Trump administration’s claims that the district court’s injunction is disrupting diplomatic efforts and creating logistical problems. Lawyers representing the class of immigrants argue that the government is exaggerating its difficulties, noting that the real issue is the government’s violation of international and constitutional law.
The Disputed Deportations
The legal battle intensified when the Trump administration attempted to deport immigrants to countries like El Salvador, Libya, and South Sudan, in violation of court orders. Two flights full of immigrants were sent to El Salvador, despite a court order, and an attempt to send deportees to Libya was halted at the last minute. A third deportation effort to South Sudan was also interrupted, leading to further complications.
The government’s response to these actions was to claim that the lower court’s orders were “wreaking havoc” on the administration’s immigration strategy, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio argued that these removals were exacerbating political unrest in places like Libya. However, immigration lawyers countered that the unrest was not caused by the injunction but by the public revelation of the deportation attempts themselves.
The Legal Implications
At the heart of the legal argument is the plaintiffs’ assertion that the government is seeking a stay to avoid the consequences of its own actions—violating court orders and international agreements. The lower court had issued a nationwide injunction against third-country deportations, emphasizing that such actions violate the constitutional rights of the individuals involved, who would be sent to countries where they could face torture or death without due process.
The plaintiffs argue that the government’s complaints about diplomatic fallout and logistical complications are an attempt to shift the blame for their own illegal actions. They stress that the government’s violation of court orders is at the root of the issue, and the harm to the individuals facing deportation is much more significant.
Risk of Deportation and the Need for Due Process
The plaintiffs warn that a stay of the injunction could place thousands of immigrants at risk of being sent to countries where they could face grave danger without the chance to present their case or seek protection. They contend that the government is asking for an emergency stay to escape the consequences of violating both domestic and international law, while the immigrants involved face potential death or torture.
The lower court’s ruling is seen as a crucial safeguard for due process and the protection of individuals from being sent to countries where they would face certain harm. Immigration lawyers argue that complying with the law and providing due process is not a harm to the government, but rather a necessary step to uphold constitutional and international obligations.
Next Steps
The case has drawn attention to the complexities of U.S. immigration policy, particularly regarding the deportation of individuals to countries where they may face harm. As the U.S. Supreme Court considers whether to uphold the injunction, the decision could have significant implications for the future of third-country deportations and the protection of immigrants’ rights under international law.
