Trump administration can resume deporting migrants to 3rd countries, U.S. Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations.
The justices lifted a judicial order that required the government to give migrants slated to be deported to so-called third countries a "meaningful opportunity" to tell officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18.
Monday's Supreme Court' decision was unsigned and came with no reasoning, as is common when the high court decides emergency requests.
In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, criticized the majority's decision, calling it a "gross abuse" of the court's discretion and warning that the court's action exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death."
"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson..
U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin suggested third-country deportations could restart soon. "Fire up the deportation planes," she said in a statement, calling the decision "a victory for the safety and security of the American people."
After the department moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.
On May 21, Murphy found that the administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned Americans to avoid "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict."
Ramifications 'horrifying': lawyer for migrants
The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although U.S. officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam.
"The ramifications of [the] Supreme Court's order will be horrifying," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which is helping to represent the plaintiffs.
The decision "strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death," Realmuto said.
Murphy had found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution.
Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.
3rd-country option necessary, Trump administration argued
The administration, in its May 27 emergency filing to the Supreme Court, said that all of the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States, including murder, arson or armed robbery.
It also told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.
In March, the administration issued guidance saying that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures."
Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, U.S. authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance.
Flood of cases
The dispute is the latest of many cases involving legal challenges to various Trump policies, including immigration, to have already reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January.
The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs that allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. The justices, however, in April faulted the administration's treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under the U.S. Constitution's due process protections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBC
2 hours ago
- CBC
Inside the U.S.'s bunker-busting strike on Iran's nuclear program
The U.S. military says secrecy and misdirection were key to the success of its attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Operation Midnight Hammer deployed B-2 Spirit Bombers to drop nearly half a million pounds of bunker-buster bombs. Andrew Chang breaks down how the U.S. carried out the attack and what could come next. Images provided by Getty Images, The Canadian Press and Reuters. 1:15 - Misdirection and mixed messages 4:42 - Three-part assault 10:42 - Unanswered questions
Globe and Mail
4 hours ago
- Globe and Mail
U.S. Federal Reserve should consider cutting rates as soon as July, governor says
U.S. Federal Reserve governor Michelle Bowman on Monday said the central bank should consider cutting its key interest rate as soon as its next meeting in July, underscoring deep divisions among Fed officials as they endure sharp criticism from the White House. Ms. Bowman said that President Donald Trump's tariffs have so far not caused the jump in inflation that many economists feared, and any upcoming increase in prices would likely be just a one-time rise. 'It is likely that the impact of tariffs on inflation may take longer, be more delayed, and have a smaller effect than initially expected,' Ms. Bowman said in a speech Monday in Prague. 'Should inflation pressures remain contained, I would support lowering the policy rate as soon as our next meeting,' which is scheduled for July 29-30. Ms. Bowman, who was appointed to the Fed's board of governors by Mr. Trump in 2018, is the second high-profile official to express support for a potential July cut in as many days. On Friday, Christopher Waller, also a Trump appointee to the Fed's board, said in a television interview that the Fed should consider cutting borrowing costs next month. The blunt calls for rate cuts by Mr. Waller and Ms. Bowman differ from Fed Chair Jerome Powell's suggestion in a news conference last week that the central bank would monitor the economy over the summer and see how inflation responded to tariffs before deciding whether to reduce borrowing costs. U.S. futures price in more rate cuts in 2026 than Fed's latest projections The comments arrive as President Trump has repeatedly criticized Mr. Powell for not cutting rates, calling the Fed chair a 'numbskull' and a 'fool' for not doing so, raising concerns about the Fed's independence from politics. The president claims Fed cuts would reduce the government's borrowing costs, though the rates the government pays are mostly set by market forces, not the Fed. Ms. Bowman appeared particularly dismissive toward the threat of tariffs, which many economists say could slow growth, particularly if companies absorb the cost of the duties rather than passing them on to consumers. Doing so would cut their profit margins, which would reduce their ability to hire and invest in new business. 'Small and one-off price increases this year should translate only into a small drag on real activity,' Ms. Bowman said. 'I also expect that less restrictive regulations, lower business taxes, and a more friendly business environment will likely boost supply and largely offset any negative effects on economic activity and prices.' When the Fed lowers the short-term interest rate it controls, it often reduces borrowing costs for mortgages, auto loans, and business loans. Yet sometimes financial markets keep longer-term rates higher: The Fed cut its rate a full percentage point last year, to about 4.3 per cent, but mortgage rates only declined slightly. On Friday, Mr. Waller told CNBC that with inflation remaining tame and the economy potentially slowing, the Fed should consider a rate cut next month. He pointed to rising unemployment among recent college graduates as a sign of possible weakening in the economy, and said it was better to cut before the labour market noticeably worsened. 'I'm all in favour of saying maybe we should start thinking about cutting the policy rate at the next meeting, because we don't want to wait until the job market tanks before we start cutting,' Mr. Waller said. Still, at last week's Fed meeting, seven of the 19 officials who participate in the central bank's interest-rate decisions supported keeping rates unchanged for the rest of this year, and two pencilled in just one cut. Inflation has steadily cooled this year despite widespread concerns among economists that Trump's tariffs would boost prices. The consumer price index ticked up just 0.1 per cent from April to May, the government said last week, a sign that price pressures are muted. Prices for some goods rose last month, but the cost for many services such as air fares and hotels fell, offsetting any tariff impact. Compared with a year ago, prices rose 2.4 per cent in May, up from 2.3 per cent in April. Trump has slapped a 10-per-cent duty on all imports, along with an additional 30-per-cent levy on goods from China, 50 per cent on steel and aluminum, and 25 per cent on autos. Still, many economists say it is likely that tariffs could push inflation higher in the coming months. Also Friday, Mary Daly, president of the Fed's San Francisco branch, said on CNBC that she looked 'more to the fall' as an appropriate time to cut rates.
CBC
4 hours ago
- CBC
Trump administration can resume deporting migrants to 3rd countries, U.S. Supreme Court rules
The U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The justices lifted a judicial order that required the government to give migrants slated to be deported to so-called third countries a "meaningful opportunity" to tell officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18. Monday's Supreme Court' decision was unsigned and came with no reasoning, as is common when the high court decides emergency requests. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, criticized the majority's decision, calling it a "gross abuse" of the court's discretion and warning that the court's action exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death." "The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote in the dissent, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.. U.S. Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin suggested third-country deportations could restart soon. "Fire up the deportation planes," she said in a statement, calling the decision "a victory for the safety and security of the American people." After the department moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. On May 21, Murphy found that the administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned Americans to avoid "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." Ramifications 'horrifying': lawyer for migrants The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although U.S. officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. "The ramifications of [the] Supreme Court's order will be horrifying," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which is helping to represent the plaintiffs. The decision "strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death," Realmuto said. Murphy had found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. 3rd-country option necessary, Trump administration argued The administration, in its May 27 emergency filing to the Supreme Court, said that all of the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States, including murder, arson or armed robbery. It also told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. In March, the administration issued guidance saying that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures." Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, U.S. authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance. Flood of cases The dispute is the latest of many cases involving legal challenges to various Trump policies, including immigration, to have already reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January. The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs that allowed hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the U.S. temporarily. The justices, however, in April faulted the administration's treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under the U.S. Constitution's due process protections.
