The Department of Homeland Security filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court to resume deporting illegal immigrants to third countries, a policy that has already moved more than 25,000 people to 29 nations over 15 months.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer submitted the filing Thursday after the Boston-based First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a Massachusetts federal court order that found the removal policy violates due process rights. The appeals court dissolved a prior stay late Wednesday, snapping the lower court's ruling back into force and halting deportation operations that had been running since mid-2025. A planned flight carrying 70 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions to three separate countries was canceled immediately, Courthouse News Service reported.

The government's 42-page application marks the third time the administration has brought this legal fight to the high court. The Supreme Court previously sided with the administration twice in the same case, including a 6-3 ruling last year that allowed third-country removals to continue as long as receiving countries made blanket assurances against persecution or torture of deportees.

Sauer warns of 'chaos' as deportation flights grind to a halt

In the filing, Sauer argued the lower court order has crippled ongoing removal operations, disrupted agreements with foreign countries, and created logistical problems across the system. He described the people targeted by the policy as "some of the worst of the worst criminal aliens" whose home countries refuse to accept them.

"To halt that chaos, an immediate administrative stay should be entered while the court considers this application."

The government contends that the illegal immigrants challenging the policy have already received final removal orders and therefore have already had a chance to contest their deportations. Because of that, Sauer argued, they cannot establish irreparable harm. A separate Department of Justice filing put the point bluntly, as Reuters reported: "While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the nation does not."

DHS General Counsel James Percival called third-country deportations "an essential public safety tool," according to Just The News. The administration has removed more than 25,000 illegal immigrants to 29 countries under the policy, with the vast majority going to Mexico. Other destinations include South Sudan, Equatorial Guinea, and the Central African Republic, a country the State Department warns American citizens not to visit because it is too dangerous.

The administration also entered a $7.5 million deal with Equatorial Guinea for deportation arrangements. Earlier this month, the Associated Press reported that lawyers for two men deported to that country said their clients were beaten and held at gunpoint in a hotel turned into a detention center.

First Circuit ruled the policy violates immigration law and the Fifth Amendment

The underlying dispute began in February, when a Massachusetts federal judge found that DHS cannot deport illegal immigrants to countries not listed in their removal orders without first providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The First Circuit upheld that ruling on September 18, finding the policy violates both federal immigration law and the Fifth Amendment's due process protections.

The administration argued it should have been allowed to file a response to the motion before the lower court granted it. But the appeals court dissolved the stay anyway, putting the district judge's order into immediate effect.

Attorney Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, who represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling was clear-cut. She told reporters:

"The First Circuit has spoken clearly: The government's third-country removal policy is unlawful, and class members have a right to meaningful notice of third countries and a meaningful opportunity to raise fear-based claims."

Realmuto added that the Supreme Court appeal was predictable, given the administration's public statements about the program.

"It is not at all surprising that the administration is now asking the Supreme Court to stay the First Circuit's decision, the administration has publicly and repeatedly said it wants to continue sending people to third countries where we know that they face horrific and potentially life-threatening conditions."

The administration's track record at the Supreme Court on immigration issues has been mixed. The high court cleared the way for deportation flights to Haiti after ruling on TPS termination, but it has also handed the administration setbacks on other policy fronts.

Justice Jackson sets Monday deadline for response

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency applications from the First Circuit, gave the plaintiffs' lawyers until 4 p.m. Monday to respond to the government's filing, Breitbart reported. The speed of that timeline reflects the urgency both sides attach to the dispute.

The case arrives at the Supreme Court during a period of intense legal conflict between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary over immigration enforcement. The administration has faced lawsuits from sanctuary cities and progressive officials challenging its immigration rules, while simultaneously pressing the high court to uphold its authority on border and deportation policy.

Democrats, meanwhile, have openly discussed restructuring the courts themselves. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has laid out a plan to reshape the Supreme Court and eliminate the filibuster if Democrats win the midterms, a proposal that would fundamentally alter the institution now being asked to rule on the administration's deportation authority.

Last year's 6-3 ruling allowing third-country removals drew a sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who wrote: "In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the Government took the opposite approach." DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin responded to that ruling with two words: "Fire up the deportation planes." The New York Post reported the decision was along strictly ideological lines, with the conservative majority siding with the administration.

The administration has also brought other major policy disputes to the Supreme Court this term, including a request to greenlight its transgender military ban.

70 convicted criminals stayed in the country because of one court order

The immediate, concrete consequence of the First Circuit's decision is straightforward: a flight carrying 70 illegal immigrants with criminal convictions to three countries was scrapped. Thousands more who are eligible for third-country removal remain in custody with no clear path to deportation while the legal fight continues.

The government says it has spent 15 months building a deportation infrastructure that spans 29 countries and involves costly bilateral agreements. The lower court order, in the administration's view, dismantled that system overnight by requiring individualized notice and hearings before each removal, a process the government argues is unworkable at scale and unnecessary for people who have already exhausted their legal challenges.

Opponents counter that sending people to countries where they have no ties, and where some have reportedly faced violence, without giving them a chance to object is a violation of basic constitutional protections. The two sides are now asking nine justices to settle a question that has bounced between district courts, appeals courts, and the Supreme Court for more than a year.

When convicted criminals who have been ordered removed cannot be deported because a court insists on more process for people who have already had their day in court, the system is not protecting rights, it is protecting dysfunction.