The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday cleared the way for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own, pausing a lower-court ruling that had found the practice unlawful. The justices granted an emergency request from the Justice Department and will hear full arguments in the dispute in December, with a final ruling to follow. The order puts on hold a ruling by Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who had held that the Department of Homeland Security's policy of removing migrants to so-called third countries is unlawful. The three liberal justices dissented, and the conservative majority offered no explanation for its decision, though the order suggests the administration may have the upper hand as the litigation moves forward. For now, the decision means the administration can restart the removals while its appeal proceeds. Under the policy, migrants who cannot be returned to the countries named on their deportation orders may be sent to nations with which they have no ties, receiving little or no advance notice and no meaningful chance to argue that they would face persecution or torture there. The case began in 2025, when immigrant rights groups filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of migrants seeking to block the practice. The groups challenged removals carried out after the Department of Homeland Security moved to sharply increase third-country deportations. This is not the first time the Supreme Court has sided with the administration in this fight. The justices previously suspended an earlier preliminary order from Judge Murphy that had halted the removals, and later lifted protections the judge had imposed for a group of men facing removal to South Sudan. According to a tally by human rights groups, more than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy since it was implemented last year, with the vast majority sent to Mexico. The administration has also carried out third-country removals to politically unstable South Sudan — a country the State Department urges Americans to avoid because of the risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict — as well as Uganda, Eswatini, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, the Central African Republic, and other nations. In court filings, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the policy as an "essential tool" for removing migrants, some with serious criminal records, in cases where they have won limited protections in immigration court that prevent their removal to their home countries, or where their home countries refuse to accept them. Sauer argued that prolonged delays had created logistical problems, forcing the Department of Homeland Security to cancel a flight to three countries carrying 70 people and to remove nearly 150 migrants from removal flights headed to four other countries. The policy is one of a series of measures the administration has adopted in pursuit of Trump's goal of mass deportation. A sweeping crackdown on immigration has been among the president's top priorities since he returned to office last year. The December arguments will not simply replay Tuesday's emergency decision. The justices have asked both sides to address whether the lower court had the jurisdiction and authority to issue such a broad block, and whether the government's policy violates federal immigration law or constitutional due process protections. Until a final ruling arrives, the temporary order leaves the legal questions unresolved — but the removals themselves can continue.