WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court for now let the Trump administration resume deporting undocumented people to countries other than their own with little if any notice. The court will hear arguments on the issue in December.

Granting an administration request Tuesday over the dissents of the three liberal justices, the high court put on hold a federal judge’s order that required people who are being deported to get notice and a meaningful chance to argue that they would be at risk of persecution or torture. The new decision will apply while the justices consider the government’s appeal.

The court’s conservative majority didn’t offer an explanation, but the order signals the administration may have the upper hand. The justices laid out several questions for both sides to address in their briefs, including whether the lower court had jurisdiction over the case and authority to enter a sweeping block, and whether the government’s policy violates U.S. immigration law or constitutional due process protections.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated they would have denied the government’s request but didn’t include a dissenting opinion along with the order.

The Supreme Court order doesn’t resolve whether the removal policy is legal, said Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, a lead attorney in the case. But allowing it to resume “is a devastating result for people who may be put on a plane before they ever have notice or an opportunity to raise a fear claim,” she said in a statement.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and the White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer had told the justices that a federal appeals court caused “chaos” when it let the ruling take effect last week. Sauer said the government had to quickly cancel a flight carrying 70 migrants to three countries.

The decision “created substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations — including the cancellation of flights — and led to added expense, potential diplomatic issues, and the inability to remove dangerous criminals,” Sauer argued.

The showdown came amid reports that the administration has cut deals with 31 countries to accept people who aren’t their own citizens, according to the Washington Post. Many of the countries have notorious human rights records, according to a Sept. 18 New York Times story that described deported people being hooded and beaten at a remote hotel in Equatorial Guinea.

People deported to third countries “have faced indefinite detention by foreign governments, chain refoulement, disappearance, and abuse in detention, including beatings, sexual assault, inhumane conditions, and being held incommunicado,” the migrants suing the administration told the Supreme Court.

“Chain refoulement” refers to the practice of third countries accepting migrants and then sending them to their home countries.

The Trump administration’s third-country deportations started as part of the crackdown on undocumented immigrants because of rules that prevent sending migrants to their home countries if they fear persecution or torture there.

Under the Department of Homeland Security policy, migrants aren’t guaranteed any notice before they are shipped to a third country. In a June 2025 memo, Immigration and Customs Enforcement said it will “generally wait at least 24 hours” before sending someone to a country that hasn’t disavowed persecution or torture.

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority has already backed the administration twice during earlier stages of the litigation. The court in June 2025 lifted a preliminary order, issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, that gave people 10 days notice and a chance to be heard before they could be shipped to a third country.

The justices quickly reinforced that decision with a second order that let eight migrants be sent to South Sudan, a country that was on the State Department’s “Do Not Travel” list amid an armed conflict. Both rulings, which applied while the litigation continued, drew scathing dissents from the court’s liberals.

Murphy then issued a final ruling, saying that the administration’s policy of swift deportations ran afoul of both federal immigration law and the Constitution’s due process clause. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals largely upheld the ruling on Sept. 18 on a 3-0 vote.

“An individual’s right to contest removal to a country based on a fear of persecution in that country means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination,” Judge Seth Aframe wrote for the panel.

The appeals court followed up with the Sept. 23 decision that said Murphy’s injunction could go into effect right away.

The case is Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., 26a406.

—With assistance from Zoe Tillman.

©2026 Bloomberg L.P. Visit bloomberg.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.