Supreme Court Grapples with Deportations Defying Due Process

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday took up an emergency appeal challenging the federal government's policy of deporting noncitizens to third countries without notice or opportunity to claim protection under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. In a shadow docket order released this week, the court addressed allegations that the Department of Homeland Security wrongfully removed one plaintiff, identified as O.C.G., to Mexico despite lacking proper proceedings, and deported six others to South Sudan in defiance of a court order[1]. A district court's intervention narrowly halted a third group from being sent to Libya, where similar risks loomed. The case stems from claims that the government's actions flout the Immigration and Nationality Act, its implementing regulations, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs argue the administration has shown 'in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard,' as detailed in the court's filing[1]. This follows a pattern of high-stakes immigration disputes, including the recent Noem v. Al Otro Lado case, where advocates defended asylum seekers' rights against turnback policies at the border[2]. Legal experts point to the court's plenary power doctrine, established in the late 19th century, which grants broad deference to Congress and the executive on immigration matters[3]. Yet recent rulings like Department of State v. Munoz (2024), authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, clarified limits, holding U.S. citizens lack a fundamental right to admit noncitizen spouses[3]. In Wilkinson v. Garland (2024), Justice Sonia Sotomayor affirmed appellate review of immigration judges' hardship findings for cancellation of removal[3]. The dispute highlights tensions in civil immigration proceedings, where deportation is deemed an administrative process, not punishment, stripping many constitutional safeguards like appointed counsel[4]. Over the past year, DHS has escalated third-country removals of criminal aliens following Supreme Court clearance in related cases[4]. Advocacy groups rallied outside the court, echoing timelines of asylum battles that have defined Biden-era enforcement[2]. A decision could impact thousands facing removal, clarifying whether expedited deportations to nations like Guatemala, South Sudan, or Libya require Convention Against Torture claims. The court's shadow docket action underscores urgency, as prior interventions prevented imminent flights[1]. Justices appeared poised to scrutinize executive overreach amid ongoing border pressures.