The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court building in Washington, D.C. on June 20, 2025

Following a Supreme Court decision allowing the Trump Administration to resume swiftly deporting undocumented immigrants to countries other than their own, the Department of Homeland Security reportedly posted “Fire up the deportation planes” on social media.

The Supreme Court, with its conservative majority, on Monday the Administration’s to suspend a federal district court judge’s April order. This order had mandated that deportees receive written notification and a “meaningful opportunity” to contest their removal to so-called third countries.

Since Donald Trump’s second term began, his Administration has reportedly been negotiating agreements with countries such as , , , , and others to accept migrants expelled from the U.S., regardless of their origin.

The Trump Administration has defended third-country deportations as necessary for removing “the worst of the worst.” They argue that migrants who have committed “heinous” crimes are often rejected by their countries of origin. They cited a recent case where the same federal judge who issued the injunction in April in May the deportation of a group of migrants to conflict-ridden . DHS described these migrants as “some of the most barbaric, violent individuals illegally in the United States.”

Lawyers representing the migrants have consistently argued that deportation to South Sudan would expose them to “a strong likelihood of irreparable harm.” Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, reiterated after the Supreme Court’s decision that the deportees could face “imprisonment, torture and even death” if deported to South Sudan, according to .

In its request for a stay, the Administration, through Solicitor General D. John Sauer, stated that because the deportees were instead sent to Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. military base in Djibouti, the injunction was “disrupting the base’s operations, consuming critical resources intended for service members, and harming national security.”

The Supreme Court did not provide a rationale for its decision. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented. Sotomayor expressed in a detailed opinion that she could not condone “so gross an abuse of the Court’s equitable discretion,” asserting that the court was “rewarding lawlessness.”

Sotomayor wrote, “Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled.”

Sotomayor further stated, “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.”

The Justice Department reportedly said regarding the deportees’ case in Djibouti that it is evaluating its subsequent actions following the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Lawyers for those deportees submitted a request for individual injunctive relief, contending that lower-court judges retain the authority to block deportations on a case-by-case basis. The motion was deemed “as unnecessary” by the federal judge, who maintained that his May order blocking their deportation remained unaffected by the Supreme Court’s decision on his earlier injunction. The Supreme Court’s ruling is anticipated to lead to a surge of individual claims in lower courts concerning third-country deportation orders.

“`