The Supreme Court, despite some internal disagreement, has allowed the Trump administration to continue quickly sending migrants to countries that are not their home countries. This decision temporarily removes a previous court order that said migrants must have a chance to challenge their deportations.

The majority of the high court did not explain their reasons in the short order. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, along with the other two liberal justices, wrote a very strong disagreement.

Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, suggested that deportations to other countries might start again soon. She said, "It's time to resume deportations," and called the decision "a victory for the safety and security of the American people."

However, a judge ruled that an originally scheduled deportation flight to South Sudan would be temporarily suspended.

The immigrants on the May flight, who were from countries like Myanmar, Vietnam, and Cuba, had committed serious crimes in the U.S. Immigration officials stated that they could not quickly send them back to their home countries.

Their attorney, Trina Realmuto, who is also the executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said that if they are sent to South Sudan, they might be imprisoned, tortured, or even killed.

U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Boston confirmed that his earlier decision, which allows them to express their worries in court, is still valid, even though the immigrants have been sent to a naval base in Djibouti.

This situation is happening during a wide-ranging effort by President Donald Trump's Republican administration to control immigration, and they have promised to send millions of people who are in the United States without permission back to their home countries.

White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson stated that the Constitution and Congress give the President the power to enforce immigration laws and remove dangerous foreign nationals from the country. She also said that the Supreme Court's decision "supports the President's right to deport criminal illegal immigrants, which helps make the country safer."

In her 19-page dissenting opinion, Sotomayor argued that the court's decision exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death" and grants the Trump administration a win, despite its earlier non-compliance with the lower court's order.

In her dissenting opinion, supported by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, she argued that the government's actions show it believes it is not limited by law, allowing it to deport people without warning or a chance to explain themselves.

South Sudan, which is the world's newest and one of its poorest countries, has experienced many periods of violence since it became independent from Sudan in 2011. The increasing political problems in the African nation could lead to another civil war.

In court documents, the Justice Department indicated that the government is considering the order to decide what to do next.

The Supreme Court's decision temporarily stops Murphy's April order. This order gave immigrants the opportunity to argue that deportation to a third country would endanger them, even if they had already used all their legal appeals.

He determined that the May deportations to South Sudan went against his directive and instructed immigration authorities to permit individuals to express their concerns through their legal representatives. Immigration officials accommodated the migrants in a modified shipping container in Djibouti, where both the migrants and the officers supervising them endured extremely difficult circumstances.

The government has made agreements with countries like Panama and Costa Rica to take in immigrants because some countries do not want to accept their citizens who have been sent back from the U.S. For example, Sotomayor pointed out that migrants sent to South Sudan in May were given less than 16 hours' notice.

Although the order from Murphy, who was appointed by President Biden, did not stop deportations to other countries, it stated that migrants must have a real chance to show they could face serious danger of torture if sent elsewhere.

In a related legal case, the Trump administration had to bring back a gay Guatemalan man who was wrongly sent to Mexico. He claimed he was raped and extorted there. This was the first time someone was known to be returned to U.S. custody after being deported since Trump's second term began.

The judges faced a similar situation concerning Trump's attempt to send Venezuelans, who were accused of being gang members, to a well-known prison in El Salvador, where they had very little opportunity to challenge their deportations in court.

However, in that situation, the judges stopped deportations, referring to an 18th-century wartime law, and decided that migrants should be given a "reasonable amount of time" to start a legal challenge before they are removed.

The court, which is mostly conservative, has often agreed with Trump on immigration matters, allowing his government to potentially stop temporary legal protection for nearly a million immigrants.