ISLAMABAD: The Trump administration has taken its battle over immigration policy to the US Supreme Court, requesting permission to deport migrants to third countries without prior notice or an opportunity to contest their removal.
This move is part of a broader effort to speed up deportations and strengthen border enforcement amid ongoing legal challenges.
The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court to lift a nationwide injunction issued by US District Judge Brian Murphy, who ruled that migrants must be given a chance to seek legal relief before being deported to countries other than their own.
The administration argues that the injunction is delaying the removal of thousands of migrants, many of whom have committed serious crimes and whose home countries refuse to accept them back. Officials say this delays enforcement and puts American citizens at risk.
Legal Battle Over Due Process Rights
Judge Murphy’s injunction centers on the constitutional right to due process under the Fifth Amendment, which guarantees individuals notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before significant government actions. According to Murphy, deporting migrants without warning violates these protections, especially if the migrants face potential persecution or torture in the third country.
The administration, however, maintains that its policy meets legal standards because it requires “credible diplomatic assurances” from the receiving countries to prevent mistreatment.
Still, critics argue that these assurances are insufficient and that migrants should be allowed to present fear-based claims in court before deportation.
Attempts to Bypass Court Orders
The legal dispute escalated after the administration tried to sidestep Murphy’s ruling by transferring migrants to the Department of Defense for rapid deportation, arguing that military actions were not subject to the court’s injunction.
However, the judge rejected this attempt and warned against sending migrants to countries like Libya, which would violate his order.
This case highlights the ongoing tension between immigration enforcement policies and judicial oversight, raising questions about the limits of executive authority and the protection of migrant rights.
