DOJ to Ask Supreme Court to Revive Third-Country Deportation Policy

The Trump administration will ask the Supreme Court to reinstate a policy allowing deportations of immigrants to countries other than their own, Attorney General Todd Blanche said Thursday, days after a federal appeals court blocked the practice.

The dispute centers on so-called third-country removals — deportations to nations that are not a migrant's country of origin. Blanche's announcement reopens a legal fight the administration has already brought to the high court once before.

What did the appeals court rule last week?

A federal appeals court blocked the government from conducting third-country removals nearly a week before Blanche's Thursday statement, according to the Guardian. Blanche characterized the ruling as procedurally unfair, writing on X that the court acted "without even allowing the government a chance to respond, and in the dark of night," and that it had blocked "all third-country removals of illegal aliens, an entirely legal and invaluable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration." The Guardian reported the ruling nearly a week before the September 24 announcement but did not specify the appeals court's reasoning in the material reviewed.

What is the Justice Department asking the Supreme Court to do?

Blanche said the department "will immediately seek relief from the Supreme Court, which previously granted a stay in this very same case," according to his statement quoted by the Guardian. That reference points to an earlier Supreme Court intervention in the same litigation, though the Guardian's account does not detail the date or scope of that prior stay. The new filing would ask the justices to lift the appeals court's block while the underlying case proceeds.

How many people have been deported to third countries so far?

Administration officials have deported more than 25,000 migrants to at least 29 third countries under agreements negotiated with those governments, the Guardian reported, citing Third Country Deportation Watch, a joint project of Refugees International and Human Rights First. In many of those cases the receiving country was Mexico, according to the same tracking project. Other removals have sent migrants to nations in Latin America, Central Asia, the Caribbean and Africa.

By the numbers

• More than 25,000 migrants deported to third countries, per Third Country Deportation Watch.
• At least 29 countries have received deportation flights under the policy, according to the same tracker.

Which countries have raised safety concerns?

The Guardian reported that some migrants have been sent to countries described as dangerous or high-risk, including the Central African Republic, where instability tied to militia activity and terrorism persists, and South Sudan, where the outlet noted an ongoing humanitarian crisis. The Guardian's report did not include government comment addressing conditions in those specific countries or how receiving-country safety is assessed before removals.

Has the Supreme Court weighed in on this policy before?

Blanche's own statement indicates yes: he wrote that the Supreme Court "previously granted a stay in this very same case," meaning the justices have already intervened once to keep the policy operating during litigation. The Guardian's account does not specify when that stay was issued or its exact terms, and no additional court filings were included in the source material reviewed for this report.

What happens next?

The administration's emergency application would go to the Supreme Court while the underlying appeals court case continues. Because the justices previously granted a stay in the same litigation, according to Blanche, the government is betting on a similar outcome this time. The Guardian's report does not include a timeline for when the Justice Department expects to file or when the Court might rule. A photograph accompanying the Guardian's report showed Liberian national police standing guard for a deportation flight that arrived in Harbel on August 20, 2026, illustrating one leg of the broader removal program now before the courts.

The case turns on a narrow but consequential legal question: whether the federal government can remove migrants to countries with which they have no prior connection, without the individualized review that opponents argue due process requires. The Guardian's report frames the appeals court block as a temporary setback for an administration policy that has already produced tens of thousands of removals — and one the Justice Department now wants the Supreme Court to preserve while the broader legal fight plays out.

For the original reporting and full context, see The Guardian's account.