No Country Wants These Criminals. Who’s Fighting To Keep Them HERE?

Passenger jet parked on tarmac front view
Photo: Caron Badkin / Shutterstock

On Thursday, September 24, President Trump’s legal team asked the Supreme Court to restart third‑country deportations after lower courts tied ICE’s hands and halted flights.

Justice Department lawyers said DHS already had to cancel a flight to three third countries for 70 would-be deportees, some of whom have criminal records, and Solicitor General D. John Sauer estimated that “thousands more” are eligible to be deported to third countries. “These include some of the worst of the worst criminal aliens — whose home countries refuse to take them back,” Sauer wrote. The lower-court order the administration wants paused requires immigration officials to give deportees notice and a chance to object before they are sent to a third country. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency appeals from the region, gave lawyers for the immigrants until Monday afternoon to respond.

Story Highlights

  • The administration filed an emergency Supreme Court request to revive third‑country removals.
  • Officials say court blocks disrupted removals, canceled flights, and raised costs and diplomatic issues.
  • A prior appeals panel once lifted a block, showing the policy had survived at least one review.
  • Critics won recent rulings demanding more notice and a chance to raise safety claims.

What The Emergency Request Seeks And Why It Matters

Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application on September 24, 2026, urging the Supreme Court to pause lower‑court orders and allow third‑country removals to continue during litigation. The filing says judges disrupted an essential enforcement tool used to remove some of the worst criminal noncitizens. The government argues the court actions caused substantial logistical problems, including canceled flights, higher costs, and diplomatic strain. The request asks the Court to restore continuity so Immigration and Customs Enforcement can resume planned operations.

The administration frames third‑country transfers as lawful under existing authority when receiving nations provide credible diplomatic assurances against persecution or torture. Officials contend these agreements let the United States remove noncitizens who cannot be returned to their home countries, while preserving safety obligations. Reports describe the policy as already in use, not just a proposal, with removals conducted before the most recent appellate setbacks. The White House sees this as a core part of its broader plan to enforce the border and remove repeat offenders efficiently.

How The Courts Have Squeezed The Policy

A federal appeals court rejected the policy in September, largely upholding a district judge who ruled the Department of Homeland Security’s approach unlawful. Judges said migrants targeted for third‑country deportation must get effective notice and a meaningful chance to raise fears of persecution or torture before transfer. Advocacy groups claim the government cannot avoid protections simply by switching destinations. The rulings tightened due‑process demands and cast doubt on rapid transfers built on minimal notice.

The legal path has not been one‑way. In March, a First Circuit panel lifted an earlier block while the case moved forward, allowing the policy to operate for a time. That short window suggested the program could function under appellate supervision. But later decisions reinstated strict limits and labeled the approach unlawful, leaving the administration to seek relief from the nation’s highest court. The back‑and‑forth shows a volatile legal fight with major consequences for daily enforcement.

What Third‑Country Removal Means In Practice

Third‑country removal allows transfer to a nation other than the person’s home if that country agrees to accept them and the United States has diplomatic assurances. Reuters reporting said the government sought to send migrants to alternative countries when safe return to their origin was not feasible, while relying on assurances to prevent abuse or torture. The administration says reversing the program risks unraveling those delicate arrangements and invites more border strain while dangerous offenders remain in limbo.

Critics counter that “credible assurances” are not enough without clear, advance notice to each person and a real chance to object. They argue people were sent to places where they had no ties and little protection. Courts embraced parts of that view, requiring stronger process before transfer. The administration replies that added hurdles let removable offenders game the system, delay flights, and drive up costs for taxpayers. The Supreme Court will now weigh the balance between speed and safeguards.

Why This Fight Hits Home For Border Security And Costs

Department of Homeland Security planners say sudden court shifts disrupt removal pipelines, waste charter flight slots, and strain staff. The filing cites canceled flights and added expense borne by taxpayers. Officials warn that delays send a signal to smugglers that the United States cannot carry out removals at scale. Supporters of the policy argue that firm and steady enforcement deters illegal crossings, protects communities from criminal offenders, and restores respect for immigration law while honoring safety obligations through vetted assurances.

What To Watch Next At The Supreme Court

The justices will decide whether to allow the policy to resume while appeals continue. A stay would let Immigration and Customs Enforcement restart third‑country flights under the diplomatic‑assurance model. A denial would lock in stricter notice and objection rules, forcing the government to redesign procedures and renegotiate logistics. Either way, the outcome will shape how fast the United States can move removable noncitizens and whether courts or the executive set the pace of border enforcement this year.

Sources:

abcnews.com, nytimes.com, americanimmigrationcouncil.org

Hot Topics

© 2026 Conservative Journal. All Rights Reserved.