Published September 29, 2026 at 4:35 PM ET · Updated September 30, 2026 at 6:14 AM ET
Supreme Court clears Trump administration to resume third-country deportations
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by Washington Post. Verification: Confirmed (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
The Supreme Court has cleared the Trump administration to resume third-country deportations. The court's order allows the deportations to resume for now.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 1 d ago, when Washington Post reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 1 d ago from Instapundit.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Trump v. J.G.G. held that detainees facing removal under the Alien Enemies Act are owed notice that they are subject to removal and must challenge removal in habeas. A. A. R. P. v. Trump held that notice about a day before removal, without information on how to contest it, fails due process. Removals may resume, but only within that notice floor, whose precise content remains unsettled.
Trump, President of the United States v. J. G. G. et al. (per curiam, on application to vacate temporary restraining orders) 604 U.S. ___ (2025) (per curiam)
Vote: 5-4 · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
The TROs are vacated: challenges to removal under the Alien Enemies Act must be brought in habeas corpus in the district of confinement, so venue for these Texas-detained plaintiffs did not lie in the District of Columbia, and equitable/APA claims cannot substitute for habeas. Critically, the per curiam confirmed a due process floor: 'AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act.
A. A. R. P. v. Trump, President of the United States 605 U.S. ___ (2025) (per curiam)
Vote: 7-2 · Opinion: Per curiam (unsigned)
The Court (having intervened by an extraordinary post-midnight order on April 19, 2025 barring removals from the Northern District of Texas) held: (1) it had jurisdiction because the district court's inaction in the face of imminent removals had the practical effect of refusing an injunction; (2) on notice, the government's practice flunked due process — 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster' under Trump v.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
