BREAKING: Supreme Court Lets ICE Disappear Migrants to Dangerous Countries
Despite court findings of “flagrant violations” and risk of torture, Supreme Court halts protections for migrants without addressing the government's misconduct.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court just handed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the green light to resume its secretive, dangerous deportation policy—despite overwhelming evidence that DHS violated lower court orders and endangered people’s lives.
In a decision issued June 23, the Court granted DHS’s emergency request to pause a lower court ruling that had blocked the agency from carrying out “third-country removals” without notice or legal process. The stay allows the government to continue removing migrants to nations they’ve never lived in—including active war zones like South Sudan and Libya—without informing them ahead of time or letting them raise claims under international anti-torture law.
Let’s break it down:
What’s This Case About?
The case, DHS v. D.V.D., centers on DHS’s attempt to fast-track deportations to countries that aren’t a migrant’s home, origin, or even somewhere they’ve previously lived—called third-country removals.
Federal law says DHS can only do this after exhausting more appropriate options (like sending someone back to their country of citizenship). And even then, the U.S. is legally prohibited from deporting people to countries where they’re likely to be tortured—under both international law and a U.S. statute passed in 1998 to enforce the Convention Against Torture.
But in February, DHS quietly issued new guidance encouraging agents to identify deportation targets from the non-detained docket and start booting them to “third countries” without court orders or proper screening for torture risks.
The result? People were whisked away to Mexico, El Salvador, and South Sudan without warning, often detained at Guantanamo Bay first. In one case, DHS secretly deported a gay man to Guatemala even though an immigration judge had already found he faced likely torture there.
What Did the Lower Courts Say?
The District Court in Massachusetts and the First Circuit Court of Appeals weren’t having it.
They issued orders blocking the policy, requiring DHS to give migrants:
Written notice before being removed to a third country
A meaningful opportunity to request protection under the Convention Against Torture.
But DHS ignored the court. Repeatedly. They moved detainees in the middle of the night, offered 16-hour notice windows, and conducted deportations in clear violation of standing court orders—even to places like Libya where the State Department warned of “armed conflict” and government instability.
When pressed, DHS attorneys tried to claim the deportations weren’t their fault—that the Department of Defense was actually the one flying people out. The court didn’t buy it.
What Did the Supreme Court Just Do?
Rather than uphold those protections—or even pause to examine the government’s lawbreaking—the Supreme Court granted DHS’s emergency stay.
In plain terms: the government now has the Supreme Court’s permission to continue conducting these surprise deportations to third countries, even though the lower courts found the process unconstitutional, illegal, and dangerous.
Why Does This Matter?
According to the dissent written by Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson), the government’s behavior was an “open flouting” of court orders and a “gross abuse” of emergency relief.
Some takeaways from her dissent:
DHS removed people to South Sudan and El Salvador despite clear court orders not to.
DHS lied to the court about giving people a chance to request protection.
People were deported within hours of being notified—some had no time to contact lawyers or assert their rights.
One man had to go into hiding in Guatemala.
Had the District Court not intervened, 13 people would have been deported to Libya, sparking political unrest and violence in Tripoli.
Sotomayor put it plainly: “The Government’s misconduct threatens the rule of law to its core.”
What’s Next?
Technically, this stay is only temporary. It lasts until the First Circuit resolves the underlying appeal—and possibly until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case fully.
But in the meantime, DHS can return to a playbook of late-night deportations, secretive Guantanamo transfers, and flights to violent countries—without having to tell migrants or give them a chance to speak up.
Thousands of lives hang in the balance. And for now, due process doesn’t seem to be part of the itinerary.
Migrant Insider’s Take
This is bigger than legal procedure. This is about what it means when the government thinks it can violate its own laws, lie to courts, and get away with it because the consequences only fall on migrants.
We’ll keep reporting. Please subscribe to support our work.