In a 6-3 vote issued Sept. 29, the high court paused a lower appeals court ruling and lifted restrictions that required the government to give migrants notice and a chance to object before being sent to third countries.
The high court has suspended an injunction by a lower court that had stopped the ongoing removal of a class of dangerous alien criminals to nations other than their home countries.
The ruling means that these migrants can go on being removed while the case proceeds. The illegals — who have been convicted of such crimes as child sexual assault, sexual abuse of the mentally disabled, and murder — claimed that if they were removed to their home countries, they would face torture.
"In some cases, you have countries that refuse to take back their own people, and in other cases, you have people who make legitimate claims that they fear torture or something worse if they return to their home countries," notes Ira Mehlman, media director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "But that doesn't mean that they get to stay here. It means that they can go someplace else."
Mehlman says the regulations require individualized diplomatic assurances that a given individual will not be tortured in the receiving country.
"As long as they are being sent to a country where there is not going to be any risk to their lives or their safety, it is perfectly legitimate to send them to that country," he tells AFN.
Mehlman says these removals are obviously legal, and FAIR is pleased the Supreme Court has cut off the contrived delaying tactics of the lower courts by suspending the injunction.
The Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments for December 2026 in the case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., to deliver a definitive ruling on whether the rapid deportation policy complies with federal law and due process rights.
