US SUPREME COURT ALLOWS TRUMP ADMINISTRATION TO RESUME THIRD-COUNTRY DEPORTATIONS

The United States Supreme Court has allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without first giving them an opportunity to raise concerns about potential persecution or torture.

The court’s action on Tuesday temporarily blocked a lower-court ruling that had restricted the administration’s third-country deportation policy.

However, the justices agreed to hear the broader legal challenge in December, meaning the latest order does not amount to a final ruling on whether the policy is lawful.

The case centres on the Trump administration’s policy of deporting migrants to countries where they are neither citizens nor necessarily have any previous connection.

Reuters reported on Tuesday that more than 25,000 migrants had been deported to 29 countries under the policy, with the majority sent to Mexico. Several African countries, including South Sudan, Uganda, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia and the Central African Republic, have also received deportees.

Under the policy, migrants may be removed to third countries that provide diplomatic assurances that they will not be persecuted or tortured.

Where such assurances have not been provided, the policy allows for notice and an assessment of possible persecution or torture if a migrant raises concerns.

The Supreme Court’s decision followed a ruling by Boston-based federal district judge Brian Murphy, who found the Department of Homeland Security’s policy unlawful.

The 1st US Circuit Court of Appeals on September 18 largely upheld Murphy’s ruling, holding that migrants should have a meaningful opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture before being deported to a third country.

The Trump administration subsequently asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

The court’s six conservative justices allowed the deportations to resume while the legal challenge continues, while the three liberal justices — Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

James Percival, General Counsel of the Department of Homeland Security, welcomed the decision, describing it as a setback for those opposed to the administration’s immigration policies.

However, Trina Realmuto, a lawyer representing migrants challenging the policy, criticised the ruling, arguing that it could expose some migrants to persecution or torture without adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to raise their concerns.

The dispute began after the Department of Homeland Security expanded efforts to deport migrants who could not be returned to the countries listed in their deportation orders.

The administration has defended third-country deportations as an important tool for removing migrants whose countries of origin refuse to accept them.

In its emergency application to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department described the policy as “an essential tool to remove certain aliens, including some of the worst criminal aliens.”

Opponents, however, argue that the policy can also affect migrants who have lived in the United States for years and, in some cases, have legal protection against deportation to their countries of origin.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear full arguments in December before issuing a final ruling on the legal questions surrounding the policy.

Meanwhile, Burundi has announced that it is prepared to accept some people deported from the United States despite having no previous connection to the East African country.

Burundi’s presidential spokesperson, Nancy Ninette Mutoni, said the country would accept deportees who were not facing prosecution and had no links to terrorism.

“Receiving them requires serious planning,” Mutoni said, referring to arrangements for accommodation, food and integration into local communities.

She did not disclose when the deportees would arrive or how many people Burundi had agreed to receive.

Burundi joins several African countries, including Eswatini and South Sudan, that have received third-country deportees from the United States.

The policy has intensified a broader legal and humanitarian debate over the safeguards that should apply when migrants are deported to countries with which they have no established connection.