GDELTMassachusetts
Goldstein: 0.4Tone: -3.8
Lawyers for immigrants whom the Trump administration is seeking to deport urged the Supreme Court on Monday to leave in place a ruling by a federal judge in Massachusetts that bars the government from sending them to countries that are not identified in their removal orders – a procedure known as “third-country removals.” Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents the immigrants, told the justices that the decision by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy “does not prevent third-country removals; rather, it simply requires” the Trump administration “to do so lawfully.”
The filing came four days after U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to pause Murphy’s order – the third time that he has asked the court to get involved in the dispute. Sauer contended that Murphy’s order deprived the government of “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens,” and he argued that it “rests on the same fundamentally flawed legal premises as the previous rulings.”
The legal battle over third-country removals began shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration for a second term, when he signed an executive order in which he directed the Department of Homeland Security to take “all appropriate actions” to remove noncitizens who were in the United States despite having orders to deport them.
Within weeks, DHS issued internal guidance instructing a division of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to determine whether undocumented immigrants who had received deportation orders but had not yet been removed because of the prospect that they would be tortured if they were returned to their home countries could instead be sent to a different country. Additional guidance issued the following month indicated that before immigrants can be sent to a country that is not specifically identified in their removal orders and that has not assured the United States that the immigrants will not face torture, DHS must follow a series of procedures: It must notify the immigrants of the planned removal, give them a chance to “affirmatively express” fear that they will face torture, and – if needed – conduct a screening to determine the likelihood that they will indeed be tortured.
In March, four immigrants with removal orders filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts, where they argued that they feared being deported to a country that was not identified in their orders.
Murphy issued an order that prohibited the government from deporting the plaintiffs and others like them to third countries without first providing them with written notice of the third country to which they might be removed, as well as a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge that removal. Moreover, Murphy added, DHS should also determine whether the immigrants’ fears of torture were “reasonable,” rather than whether it is “more likely than not” that they will be tortured. If immigrants cannot make that showing, Murphy added, DHS must give them at least 15 days to seek to reopen their immigration proceedings.
Sauer went to the Supreme Court for the first time in May 2025, asking the justices to put Murphy’s order on hold while the government’s appeal moved forward. Over a dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that was joined by Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan, the court on June 23 granted that request.
Sauer returned to the court for the second time one day later, asking the justices to “clarify[]” that, in the wake of their first order, the Trump administration could deport eight men being held on a U.S. military base in Djibouti after Murphy had ruled that efforts to remove them to South Sudan violated his order.
On July 3, the court issued a brief opinion in which it indicated that its June 23 order paused Murphy’s order “in full” – and also applied to his later order regarding the South Sudan deportations. Kagan wrote a brief concurring opinion, in which she indicated that although she disagreed with the court’s decision to pause Murphy’s order, she did “not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.” Sotomayor again dissented, joined by Jackson.
Once the case returned to his court, Murphy in February 2026 issued a final judgment in the immigrants’ favor and threw out the third-country removal policy. He ruled (among other things) that before immigrants can be removed to a third country, they have the right to “meaningful notice” and a “meaningful opportunity” to contest removal to that third country on the ground that they have a reasonable fear of being persecuted or tortured there.
On Sept. 18, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit largely upheld Murphy’s ruling, and on Wednesday it dissolved a March 16, 2026, order that put Murphy’s ruling on hold while the government appealed.
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court again on Thursday afternoon, asking the justices to step in for the third time. Sauer told the justices that the reinstatement of Murphy’s order has “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.”
In their brief on Monday opposing a stay of Murphy’s ruling, the immigrants contended that the Trump administration’s arguments “ignore the significant harm resulting from deporting thousands of longtime U.S. residents, many with no criminal history, to third countries without regard to the persecution or torture they face there.” Immigrants who have been deported “without meaningful notice or an opportunity to present” claims about what could happen in the particular countries to which they would be sent, they wrote, “have faced prolonged and arbitrary detention, beatings and sexual assault, disappearance,” and have been sent from those countries “to countries from which the United States had already granted them protection. These harms cannot be undone.”
By contrast, the immigrants argued, the harms that the Trump administration claims will occur if Murphy’s order is allowed to remain in place “are neither irreparable nor caused by” his decision: he does not require the Trump administration to release immigrants from detention, “prohibit third-country removals, or undo existing arrangements.” The government, they said, “can avoid any resulting delays by timely providing the notice and opportunity to be heard that the law requires.”
Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Immigrants ask Supreme Court to leave ruling in place preventing Trump administration from deporting them to third-party countries , SCOTUSblog (Sep. 28, 2026, 5:39 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/09/immigrants-ask-supreme-court-to-leave-ruling-in-place-preventing-trump-administration-from-depor/
Open article →GDELTKansas
Goldstein: 1.0Tone: -0.6
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The Supreme Court on Friday turned away an attempt to use a new Missouri congressional map backed by President Donald Trump, potentially putting an end to a long-running legal dispute as absentee voting is underway in the midterm elections.
The justices halted a federal appeals court ruling that would have revived the Republican-friendly map for the November elections, which will determine control of Congress.
The Supreme Court instead let stand a decision by the Missouri Supreme Court, which ruled earlier this month that a citizen petition prevents the new map from being used unless first approved by voters in a November referendum. The decision means Missouri residents will vote under the same congressional districts used in the 2024 and 2022 elections.
Republicans had hoped the new House map — which already was used in the August primaries — could help them win an additional seat as part of a nationwide redistricting battle pushed by Trump to gain an edge in the midterms.
A panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Monday that switching districts between the primary and general elections would violate the U.S. Constitution. The panel directed a district judge to bar Missouri from using anything other than the new map but delayed the order's effect until next Monday to allow time for an appeal to the Supreme Court.
The legal wrangling has caused confusion for more than a million potential Missouri voters — nearly 1 in 4 statewide — who were shifted from one district to another, resulting in different candidates on their ballots. Absentee voting began Tuesday under the 2022 congressional districts, though some local election officials had urged voters to wait because of the legal uncertainty.
Republican redistricting focused on Kansas City
Republicans currently hold six of Missouri's eight House districts. At the urging of Trump and Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe, Missouri lawmakers last September passed revised districts that were intended to help them win seven seats in the midterms.
The redistricting significantly reshaped a Kansas City-based district held by longtime Democratic Rep. Emanuel Cleaver. It shed parts of Kansas City to neighboring districts with Republican incumbents and stretched the remainder of Cleaver's 5th Congressional District far eastward into rural Republican areas.
The result was about 59% of potential voters were new to the district, according to an Associated Press estimate. The ripple effects also shifted some voters in most of Missouri's other congressional districts.
Cleaver was unopposed in the Democratic primary. Republican state Sen. Rick Brattin won a six-way Republican primary under the revised districts. They remain the candidates for the general election, even though the district boundaries have reverted to their prior lines.
Brattin was a plaintiff, along with Republican Rep. Bob Onder and two other voters, in a federal lawsuit that led to the 8th Circuit's ruling and the last two appeals to the Supreme Court.
Missouri's redistricting prompted a big legal fight
At least 16 lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts related to Missouri's congressional redistricting. The battle has been the longest and most complex among roughly a dozen states that sought to change their U.S. House districts over the past year.
Missouri's new map survived most of the lawsuits, including ones contending that mid-decade redistricting violated the state constitution and that the new districts ran afoul of requirements to be compact. In one case, the Missouri Supreme Court allowed the new districts to be used while election officials worked to verify petition signatures seeking to put the map to a statewide vote.
Republican Secretary of State Denny Hoskins waited until the legal deadline on Aug. 4 — the day the new districts were used in the primaries — to reject the petition. He asserted referendum petitions aren't allowed for congressional redistricting.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled Sept. 3 that the referendum petition was valid. It ordered Hoskins not to use the new map and to instead use the districts adopted in 2022, after the last census. The U.S. Supreme Court let that ruling stand on Sept. 8. But minutes later, U.S. District Judge Stephen Clark issued a conflicting order in favor of the new map.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 10 blocked Clark's order from taking effect. That day, the Missouri Supreme Court held Hoskins temporarily in contempt for telling local election authorities to use the new map after Clark's order.
But that wasn't the end of the matter. The 8th Circuit, hearing an appeal of Clark's blocked order, ruled in favor of the Trump-backed map Monday. That's what led to the latest decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reactions to SCOTUS ruling Friday
Following Friday's ruling, Missouri organizations and officials reacted to the decision.
U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver II, D-Mo., spoke with KSHB 41 News on Friday after Friday's announcement.
"Anyone who hasn't been baffled by this simply doesn't understand bafflement," Cleaver said.
Cleaver shared that he hopes the ruling will help voters who have been dealing with confusion on what district they will vote in come November.
"We’re going to make sure that the voters understand that it's the same map they voted on for the last few years. In some ways, the confusion will be lessened because the ballots have already been printed, and in at least two cases, people have already voted," Cleaver said. "Good news that we don’t have to go back and try to explain that their vote is not going to count. The message is needed, but it’s a lot simpler than it would have been had they ruled in the other direction."
State Sen. Rick Brattin, who is running against incumbent Cleaver in the Nov. 3 general election, responded to Friday's ruling, calling it a "travesty for Missouri voters."
“I am grateful to the Eighth Circuit for squarely addressing the merits of this case and stating plainly what common sense and the Constitution require: voters should not choose their nominees under one congressional map and then be forced into entirely different districts for the general election.
"Today’s Supreme Court decision is a travesty for Missouri voters and for the integrity of our elections. Missouri will now conduct a congressional primary under one map and a general election under another. Voters who lawfully participated in the August primary will be moved into districts where they had no voice in choosing the nominees who will appear on their ballot in November. This is the most unprecedented form of voter disenfranchisement in American history, and Missouri voters deserve far better.
"The responsibility for this chaos rests first and foremost with the Missouri Supreme Court. With the stroke of a pen, it overturned a congressional map passed by the people’s elected legislature and signed by the Governor after that map had already been used to conduct the primary election. The Eighth Circuit recognized the serious constitutional problem that decision created. Missouri voters are now being forced to live with the consequences.
"This is part of a dangerous pattern of courts asserting power that belongs to the people and their elected representatives. Judges are not kings, and courts are not legislatures. Our system of government depends upon each branch respecting the constitutional authority of the others. The Missouri Supreme Court abandoned that principle in this case, usurped the authority of Missouri’s duly elected legislative and executive branches, and left Missouri voters paying the price.”
People Not Politicians, the group that spearheaded efforts to put the 2025 map to a statewide vote in November, shared a statement in support of the ruling to use the 2022 maps.
"We are done with corrupt politicians trying to force their map into effect outside the process outlined in the Missouri constitution," Executive Director Richard von Glahn said
Open article →NBCUnited States
Goldstein: 0.0CAMEO 01
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday permitted the Trump administration to use an expanded federal database containing citizenship information, as the president encourages states to purge people from voter rolls.
The justices, divided 6-3 on ideological lines with conservatives in the majority, granted an emergency request filed by the government after lower courts ruled that the Trump administration’s changes to the database were likely unlawful.
Critics have said the data is unreliable and could lead to U.S. citizens being kicked off the voter rolls.
But the court noted in its unsigned ruling that the National Voter Registration Act bars the broad purging of voter rolls in the weeks leading up to an election, which “limits the potential impact” of the decision this year. States can still make individualized queries about voters.
On the broader legal questions raised in the case, the court said that federal law requires the government to respond to requests from states for information about citizenship.
The lower court injunction “prevents the federal government from using the program it believes is best suited to the task,” the court said.
In dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote that the government had not done enough to show that the lower court ruling needed to be blocked.
In her view, “the harm caused by burdening or disenfranchising even a few lawful voters outweighs the nonexistent harm that the Government experiences when it is prevented from taking an action that it likely lacks the authority to take,” she added.
Various groups challenging the plan, led by the League of Women Voters, have argued that it violates several laws, including the Social Security Act and the Privacy Act.
The Supreme Court decision “puts millions of Americans at risk for being unlawfully targeted by the administration’s unreliable voter purge database,” the groups said in a statement.
Conservative who have backed the administration’s efforts to tighten voting laws, welcomed the decision.
The ruling “just makes it easier for states to get federal citizenship data to help them clean up voter rolls,” Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, said in a statement.
The Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements program, known as SAVE, was set up by Congress in 1986 so that government agencies could quickly determine someone’s immigration status when they applied for benefits like Social Security.
The Trump administration expanded SAVE after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in March 2025 that required agencies to take steps to better ensure that only U.S. citizens vote in elections.
The government expanded the database by adding information from the Social Security Administration, which enabled searches using Social Security numbers and allowed officials to do bulk searches.
After states started putting their voter rolls through the newly expanded system, some local officials noticed mistakes; many of the flagged registrants were newly naturalized citizens, according to reporting from ProPublica and The Texas Tribune.
Texas was one of the first states to put its full voter rolls — more than 18 million registrations — through the SAVE database last year. Just three people have been charged with voting illegally as a noncitizen.
A federal judge blocked the Trump administration plan, with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reaching the same conclusion.
In court papers, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said that the district court’s ruling “threatens the integrity of upcoming elections” by preventing the government from responding to state requests to verify the citizenship of potential voters.
Opponents argue the expanded database could force bureaucratic obligations on newly naturalized citizens who are asked to prove their citizenship after being flagged by the system.
Noncitizen voting is extremely rare. All states are required to conduct voter roll list maintenance under federal law, and states already have processes to identify any noncitizens who do accidentally make it onto the voter rolls.
Open article →GDELTColorado
Goldstein: 2.4Tone: -6.0
The Trump administration urgently approached the United States Supreme Court on Thursday, seeking to lift judicial restrictions that hinder swift deportations of immigrants to nations other than their own. This move comes after a First Circuit order allegedly forced the cancellation of a flight carrying 70 individuals, according to government sources.
The Associated Press reports that the administration requested the justices to immediately suspend lower court orders. These orders require the government to provide immigrants with a meaningful chance to contest their deportation to a country not initially specified in their immigration proceedings.
Attorney General Todd Blanche confirmed the filing of the motion on Thursday. "We have just submitted an emergency stay request to the Supreme Court. As I mentioned, we will seek relief immediately," he posted on his X account.
Blanche noted that the opposition has until Monday to respond to the government's plea.
Judicial Intervention and Its Implications
The Supreme Court's involvement was sought following a late-night order from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on September 23rd. This decision, according to the administration, necessitated the cancellation of a scheduled flight on Thursday, carrying 70 individuals with criminal convictions to three distinct countries.
The government argued that this cancellation also required renewed diplomatic negotiations with each of the receiving nations. While the administration has not publicly identified these three destinations, immigrant attorneys had earlier requested urgent intervention upon learning of a planned flight from Alexandria, Louisiana, to Burundi, Rwanda, and the Central African Republic.
Legal Battle Over Deportation Procedures
Hours following this request, the First Circuit clarified that a previous order allowing flights to proceed during ongoing litigation was no longer effective. Blanche expressed strong criticism of the decision, arguing it deprived authorities of a tool the government deems lawful for executing its immigration policy.
The controversy stems from a judicial ruling on the protections immigrants should receive before being deported to a third country. The ruling does not outright ban such transfers but mandates that affected individuals receive effective notice and a substantial opportunity to argue they might face persecution or torture in the destination country.
On September 18th, the First Circuit largely upheld the decision by federal judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, challenging the policy applied by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). In its detailed opinion, the court stipulated that DHS must give affected individuals adequate notice of the third country intended for deportation and a fair chance to contest this destination on grounds of reasonable fear of persecution or torture.
Impacts on Immigrant Populations
While the court confirmed these procedural rights, it rejected another aspect of the lower court's decision, which required the government to first attempt deportation to specific countries before considering third states.
The Trump administration argues that these new judicial requirements could lead to extended delays and necessitate changes to agreements made with foreign governments. "The government has successfully deported thousands of foreigners to third countries in recent months, and thousands more qualify for such deportations," wrote United States Solicitor General D. John Sauer in the Supreme Court filing submitted on Thursday.
The administration claims it resorts to third-country deportations when rapid return to the individuals' home countries is not feasible, assuring that the receiving governments provide guarantees against persecution or torture for the deportees.
According to AP, most deportees sent to countries other than their own have been relocated to Mexico, though thousands have been transferred to over twenty different countries under various agreements negotiated by Washington.
Legal challenges to these procedures persist. Last Friday, a federal judge in Colorado ordered the administration to return Bryan Omar Sánchez, a Honduran deported on July 29th to the Central African Republic, to the United States. Judge Regina M. Rodríguez directed that Sánchez be returned and released upon arrival in the U.S. The Honduran had a pending asylum application and protection under the Convention Against Torture at the time of his deportation to Africa.
This policy has also affected Cuban nationals. In early September, several Cubans deported by the United States to African countries recounted months of detention, untreated illnesses, weight loss, family separation, and uncertainty about their immigration status.
Among them were Cubans sent to Eswatini and the Central African Republic, while others from the island were relocated to countries like Liberia and Equatorial Guinea.
This case is part of a broader legal dispute over third-country deportations. Stay updated with the latest developments in our U.S. Immigration section.
Understanding the Supreme Court's Role in Third-Country Deportations
What prompted the Trump administration to seek Supreme Court intervention?
The administration sought intervention to remove judicial restrictions on deportations to third countries, which they claim hinder rapid deportations and affect diplomatic agreements.
How did the First Circuit's decision impact deportation procedures?
The decision required the government to provide immigrants with notice and opportunity to challenge deportation to third countries, potentially delaying the process.
What are the potential consequences of the new judicial requirements for deportations?
The requirements could lead to significant delays and necessitate changes in existing agreements with foreign governments regarding deportations.
Open article →