The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting certain migrants to countries other than their countries of origin while the justices prepare to consider the broader legal dispute.

The court’s September 29 order paused a lower-court ruling that had required migrants facing removal to a third country to receive notice and an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments over the policy in December.

Lower Court Ruling Put on Hold

The case began after migrants and immigrant-rights organizations challenged the administration’s third-country removal policy.

A federal judge in Massachusetts had ruled that migrants should receive meaningful notice about where they were being sent and an opportunity to present claims that they could face serious harm in the destination country.

A federal appeals court largely upheld that decision before the administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene.

Supreme Court Review Is Still Pending

The Supreme Court’s latest action does not constitute a final ruling that the deportation policy is lawful.

Instead, the justices have temporarily suspended the lower-court restrictions while agreeing to hear the underlying case. The court is expected to examine questions concerning the legality of the policy, the authority of lower courts to issue broad restrictions and the procedural rights of migrants facing removal.

Three justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson—said they would not have granted the administration’s request for the temporary order.

What Are Third-Country Deportations?

Under the policy, some people with final removal orders can be sent to a country other than their country of citizenship.

The administration has argued that the approach is necessary when a person’s home country will not accept them or when logistical and diplomatic barriers prevent immediate removal.

The government has also said that countries accepting deportees provide assurances that those individuals will not be persecuted or tortured.

Legal and Humanitarian Questions

The central dispute concerns the procedural protections available before a person is transferred to an unfamiliar country.

Lawyers representing migrants have argued that people need an opportunity to raise country-specific concerns before removal. They have pointed to cases in which deportees allegedly faced detention and other serious difficulties after being transferred.

The administration disputes those arguments and maintains that its existing procedures and diplomatic assurances provide an adequate legal basis for the removals.

Thousands Already Affected

According to figures cited in the litigation, the administration has used third-country arrangements to deport thousands of migrants to countries outside their countries of citizenship.

Reuters reported that more than 25,000 migrants had been deported to 29 countries under the policy, with Mexico receiving the largest share. Other destinations have included countries in Africa and Latin America.

December Hearing Will Be Crucial

The Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing will determine the next stage of the legal dispute.

Until the justices issue a final ruling, the September 29 order permits the administration to continue third-country removals subject to the court’s eventual decision.

The case could ultimately clarify how much procedural protection migrants must receive before the U.S. government sends them to a country that is not their country of origin.