Policy Update: 09/24/26
Administration Seeks Supreme Court Approval for Third-Country Deportations
What’s happening
The Trump administration plans to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the Department of Homeland Security to resume deporting immigrants to countries other than their countries of origin. The request follows a federal appeals court decision upholding a lower-court ruling that found DHS’s third-country removal policy unlawful.
The case was brought by immigrants with removal orders and focuses on what protections the government must provide before sending someone to a country where they have no prior connection. The administration says it has already deported more than 25,000 immigrants to at least 29 third countries through agreements with foreign governments.
Why it matters
The case could determine how much authority the executive branch has to use third-country agreements as part of its mass-deportation strategy. It could also establish whether immigrants must receive:
Advance notice of the proposed destination;
An opportunity to consult an attorney;
A meaningful chance to explain why they fear being sent there; and
Screening for risks of persecution, torture, trafficking, detention, or other harm.
A Supreme Court ruling favoring the administration could accelerate removals and make third-country deportation a more central part of federal immigration enforcement.
Impact
Immigrants could be sent to countries where they have no family, community ties, legal status, or support system.
People may have little time to find an attorney or present evidence about the dangers they could face.
Asylum seekers may need to establish a new fear-of-harm claim concerning a country they never expected to enter.
Detention, language barriers, and rapid transfers could make it difficult to challenge a removal.
Families may lose contact with loved ones if individuals are moved between detention facilities and then deported to unfamiliar destinations.
Third-country removals could expose immigrants to unsafe living conditions, detention, exploitation, or further displacement.
Sources
Trump administration to ask supreme court to allow third-country deportation policy
Trump to ask Supreme Court to remove block on third-country removals - Maryland Daily Record
_________________________________________________________________
Immigration-Agent Shootings Raise Use-of-Force and Accountability Concerns
What’s happening
Federal immigration agents have shot at least 21 people during President Trump’s second term, according to an ABC News review of news reports, statements from lawmakers, and government releases. Eight of the shootings were fatal, and three of the people killed were U.S. citizens. ABC News also identified at least 15 incidents in which immigration agents fired their weapons without injuring anyone.
The most recent incident involved Wilber Rafael Garces Perez, a Venezuelan man shot by an ICE officer in Austin, Texas. DHS said he was unlawfully present and subject to a final removal order. His attorney disputed that characterization, saying he was legally present and had applied for asylum. DHS has said immigration enforcement operations in Austin will continue.
Why it matters
The reported shootings raise significant questions about:
Federal use-of-force standards;
Agent training and de-escalation practices;
Body-camera use and the preservation of evidence;
Independent investigation of shootings;
Public disclosure of agents’ identities and conduct;
Accuracy of DHS statements following critical incidents; and
Remedies available to injured people and grieving families.
The inclusion of U.S. citizens among those killed demonstrates that the consequences of aggressive immigration enforcement extend beyond undocumented immigrants.
Impact on immigrants
Immigrant communities may be more fearful of immigration agents and other law-enforcement agencies.
People may avoid reporting crimes, witnessing in court, attending appointments, or seeking emergency assistance.
Families may struggle to obtain information after a shooting or determine which agency and officers were involved.
Conflicting accounts of an individual’s immigration status can make it difficult for families and the public to understand what occurred.
Asylum seekers and people with pending immigration matters may be treated publicly as deportable before their legal circumstances have been independently reviewed.
Mixed-status families and U.S. citizens may also face danger during enforcement operations.
Fear and trauma may discourage participation in schools, health care, workplaces, public benefits, and community programs.
