Published September 21, 2026 at 5:00 AM ET · Updated September 25, 2026 at 6:07 AM ET
2 independent outlets are covering this story, first reported here by ProPublica. Verification: Confirmed (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to allow the resumption of deportations to 'safe third countries.' ProPublica has also published a segment examining the new makeup of the Supreme Court.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 10 d ago, when ProPublica reported it. Coverage has since grown to 2 independent outlets, including 1 wire/mainstream feed. The most recent report came 6 d ago from Breitbart.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
Yamataya v. Fisher settled that anyone who has entered the United States cannot be removed without notice and a meaningful chance to be heard. Trump v. J.G.G. and A. A. R. P. v. Trump fixed that floor: detainees must get notice and time to contest, and notice a day before removal with no explanation of rights flunks due process. The justices will ask whether restarting third-country removals clears that bar.
Kaoru Yamataya v. Thomas M. Fisher, Immigrant and Chinese Inspector (The Japanese Immigrant Case) 189 U.S. 86 (1903)
Vote: Majority for the Court (Harlan); Brewer and Peckham dissenting. Exact 7-2 tally not… · Opinion: Harlan
Although Congress may commit exclusion and deportation to executive officers without judicial trial, an alien who has landed and become part of the U.S.
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
The Patriot Watch Daily Brief
Every morning. The stories that matter, first — straight to your inbox. Free.
