Trump Asks Supreme Court to Lift Block on Torture Risk Deportations
Solicitor Sauer warns that a Massachusetts judge’s ruling disrupts immigration enforcement and diplomacy; immigrant advocates call it a life-or-death check on executive overreach.
WASHINGTON — In a fast-moving legal fight with high stakes for immigrant rights, the Trump administration on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to lift a federal court order that has temporarily blocked deportations to countries not explicitly named in removal orders—unless the government can first prove that deportees will not face torture.
The emergency request was filed by U.S. Solicitor D. John Sauer, who argued that the lower court’s ruling is “wreaking havoc” on immigration enforcement and upending international diplomacy. “These judicially created procedures,” Sauer wrote, “are interfering with the executive’s ability to remove some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens.”
Migrant Insider is sponsored by
The administration’s request stems from an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who ruled in favor of a group of four immigrants facing removal to countries where they fear torture. The group includes individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, including murder and kidnapping, but whose removal proceedings—according to Murphy—must still comply with U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture. The Supreme Court has given immigrant advocates until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, June 4, to respond.
The broader issue centers on deportations to so-called “third countries”—nations not listed on removal orders. In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has pushed to ramp up these transfers, particularly for immigrants with criminal convictions who cannot be sent to their countries of origin due to the risk of persecution or torture.
In March, DHS issued new internal guidance outlining a process for these third-country removals: officials must notify immigrants in writing of the intended destination, provide a chance to raise fear of torture, and, if necessary, conduct screenings. Judge Murphy said those protections were insufficient, ordering DHS to provide a “meaningful opportunity” for immigrants to challenge deportation—and to assess whether fears of torture are reasonable, not merely “more likely than not.”
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
The catalyst for this high-stakes legal standoff came on May 20, when DHS attempted to deport a group of immigrants—including the four plaintiffs in the lawsuit—to South Sudan, a nation teetering on the brink of renewed civil war. One day later, Murphy blocked the deportation, noting that the administration had failed to give adequate notice or assess torture risks. The judge defined a “meaningful opportunity” as at least 10 days to respond.
Those already flown out are now stranded on a U.S. military base in Djibouti, where Judge Murphy has ordered they be held under conditions similar to U.S. detention. The government must also conduct private interviews to assess any fear of torture.
In Tuesday’s Supreme Court filing, Solicitor Sauer warned of dire diplomatic fallout, accusing the courts of obstructing “sensitive negotiations” with foreign governments. He also stressed that the U.S. is now in a bind: either conduct full immigration proceedings on a military base in Africa—or fly the immigrants back to the U.S.
Sauer’s brief asked the court for an administrative stay (a freeze of proceedings while the court considers the request, preventing further action until a decision is reached) to immediately suspend Murphy’s order while the justices weigh the full appeal. The request will initially go to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who oversees emergency matters from the First Circuit.
The case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., underscores the Trump administration’s renewed push to fast-track removals and curb judicial oversight—even when lives may be at risk. Immigrant advocates warn that the administration is trying to rewrite international obligations by executive fiat, turning deportation into a geopolitical tool with little regard for human rights.
MIGRANT INSIDER IS SPONSORED BY
Read a more in-depth analysis of this case by Amy Howe on Scotus blog here.