The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, seeking to halt a Massachusetts district judge’s order that blocks the federal government from deporting people in the country illegally to third countries. The request, submitted on Thursday, asks the justices to intervene after a series of lower court rulings have repeatedly disrupted the Biden administration’s deportation policy.

Explainer Understanding the Supreme Court’s Impact on Law and Liberty

The case underscores a growing conflict between the executive branch’s immigration enforcement priorities and judicial orders that have interrupted those efforts. The dispute centers on District Judge Brian Murphy’s directive, which prohibits the government from deporting unauthorized immigrants to countries other than their nation of origin. Murphy, who was appointed by President Biden, has issued several orders against the policy, prompting the DOJ to seek Supreme Court intervention for the third time in this case, according to Solicitor General John Sauer.

The Biden administration has sought to use third-country deportations as part of its broader immigration enforcement strategy. Under this policy, certain individuals who are in the United States illegally could be removed to countries other than their home nation, often as part of agreements with those third countries or as a means to manage migration flows. Supporters of the policy argue it is a necessary tool for managing border security and deterring unlawful entry, while critics contend it can place migrants at risk and may violate legal protections.

Judge Murphy’s orders have repeatedly blocked the administration from carrying out these deportations, arguing that such removals may violate statutory or constitutional rights. The ongoing litigation has created uncertainty for federal immigration authorities, who have had to adjust enforcement practices in response to shifting court directives.

Supreme Court’s Previous Involvement

The Supreme Court has already been involved in the dispute. Last year, the justices paused Murphy’s preliminary injunction in a 6-3 decision, allowing the administration to temporarily resume third-country deportations. However, Murphy responded by issuing a new directive, asserting that his original order remained in effect despite the high court’s ruling. This prompted the administration to ask the Supreme Court to clarify its position, resulting in a 7-2 decision affirming that the stay did indeed apply to Murphy’s injunction.

Justice Elena Kagan, concurring with the clarification, criticized Murphy’s approach, stating, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.” Her comments highlighted the tension between lower courts and the Supreme Court over the scope of judicial authority in immigration cases.

"I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed."

— Justice Elena Kagan, Supreme Court Justice

Recent Lower Court Actions

In February, Judge Murphy issued a final judgment that again blocked third-country deportations. The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals initially stayed that ruling, temporarily allowing the administration to proceed with its policy. However, over the past week, the appeals court issued decisions permitting Murphy’s blockade to resume, once again halting the government’s efforts.

The DOJ’s latest application to the Supreme Court argues that Murphy’s order relies on “the same fundamentally flawed legal premises as the previous rulings.” The government maintains that the new grounds cited by lower courts are “even weaker than those that failed to sustain the originals.”

According to the DOJ, the equities supporting Supreme Court intervention “have, if anything, only grown stronger in favor of the government’s continued enforcement of the challenged policy.” The administration contends that the ongoing injunction disrupts its ability to manage immigration effectively and undermines the executive branch’s authority over enforcement priorities.

Next Steps and Responses

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who oversees emergency applications from the 1st Circuit, has ordered respondents to file a response to the government’s request by 4 p.m. on Monday, according to the Supreme Court docket. Attorneys for the respondents, led by Trina A. Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, have not yet publicly commented on the DOJ’s latest filing.

The ongoing legal battle highlights the broader national debate over immigration enforcement and the limits of judicial authority over executive policy. The Supreme Court’s decision on the DOJ’s emergency application will determine whether the administration can resume third-country deportations while litigation continues. The outcome could have significant implications for the administration’s ability to enforce its immigration agenda and for the role of federal courts in overseeing those policies.

As the case moves forward, both sides are closely watching the Supreme Court’s next steps. The justices’ decision will not only affect the immediate fate of third-country deportations but may also set important precedents for future disputes between the executive branch and the judiciary over immigration enforcement.