Third-Country Deportation Deals Promise Safeguards No One Systematically Checks, New Review Finds, Ahead of Supreme Court Argument

The United States now has third-country deportation arrangements with at least 35 governments, and every agreement whose text is public promises to respect international law, yet U.S. officials have acknowledged they do not systematically check whether receiving countries keep those promises, according to a review published Oct. 15 by the Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. The findings arrive about seven weeks before the Supreme Court hears argument on Dec. 9 over whether the government’s process for sending people to countries that are not their own is lawful.

The stakes are no longer theoretical. More than 25,000 noncitizens have been removed to third countries since January 2025, about 80 percent of them to Mexico, MPI reports, a total consistent with the at least 25,447 removals through Aug. 31 counted by the Forbidden Stories journalism consortium in an investigation published Sept. 21 by Euronews and partner outlets. For anyone holding a final removal order, these agreements now shape where the government can send them, and the Supreme Court has allowed the removals to continue while it decides the case.

Promises on paper, little follow-up

Measure	Count
Governments with third-country arrangements	At least 35
Arrangements whose text has not been disclosed (including Mexico, Moldova and Uzbekistan)	6
Published arrangements that reference compliance with international legal obligations	29 of 29
Published arrangements with countries the State Department identified as having credible reports of significant human rights issues	22 of 29
Countries that have received third-country deportees	At least 30

Source: Migration Policy Institute, “How the United States Is Using Third Countries to Expand Immigration Control,” Oct. 15, 2026. Counts cover January 2025 to mid-October 2026.

The language in the published deals is the easy part. MPI found that some require a fear screening only if the deportee affirmatively says they are afraid of harm, and that there appears to have been limited official monitoring of what happens to people after they land. That gap matters legally. Under the Convention Against Torture, as written into U.S. law, the government may not send someone to a country where torture is more likely than not, and diplomatic assurances are its main way of showing that risk has been dealt with. An assurance nobody verifies is a thin record to defend in court.

Mexico, which takes roughly four of every five third-country deportees based on MPI’s figures, is among the six countries whose terms have not been made public, so the destination handling most of the volume is the one outsiders can least evaluate.

The program also carries a cost. The Forbidden Stories investigation found about $410 million earmarked so far: $81 million for signatory governments, more than $178 million for the International Organization for Migration and $123 million for the UN refugee agency, which said it was not a party to the bilateral deals. MPI also cites a February 2026 report by Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee finding that, as of January 2026, more than 80 percent of people sent under U.S.-paid arrangements had returned or were returning to their home countries. If that figure holds, many transfers work as an indirect route home rather than a lasting placement, which eases fears of people being stranded but raises the question of what the payments buy.

The government’s case and what the justices will decide

The administration argues it is using authority Congress already gave it. Federal law, at 8 U.S.C. 1231(b), lets the government remove a person to another country willing to accept them when removal to the countries listed first is not possible. DHS General Counsel James Percival told Fox News in early October that the power is “in the statute expressly” and that finding willing countries “requires significant diplomatic energy.” The practical alternative for people whose home countries refuse to take them back is often release: since the Supreme Court’s 2001 ruling in Zadvydas v. Davis, detention after a removal order is presumptively limited to six months when removal is not reasonably foreseeable.

Challengers won in the lower courts. A Boston federal judge entered judgment on Feb. 25, 2026, and the First Circuit largely upheld it in September. On Sept. 29, the Supreme Court stayed that judgment and agreed to hear DHS v. D.V.D., with Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson saying they would have denied the stay. The Court asked the parties to address whether the district court had jurisdiction, whether it could grant classwide declaratory relief and vacatur given the limits in 8 U.S.C. 1252(f)(1), and whether the guidance violates Section 1231(b), due process or the torture convention.

The Court could resolve the case on jurisdiction or remedy without ever ruling on whether the safeguards are adequate, leaving the monitoring gap MPI describes to be fought one deportee at a time, in cases like the Arizona dispute over a former green card holder sent to Equatorial Guinea. Meanwhile new arrangements keep starting, such as Jamaica’s first transfers on Oct. 13.

Dates on the Supreme Court docket

Oct. 23: The government’s opening brief is due.
Nov. 16: The challengers’ brief is due.
Dec. 1: The government’s reply is due.
Dec. 9: Oral argument. Removals continue under the stay until the Court rules.

This article is for general information and is not legal advice.

Sources

Vasanth Vaidyanathan, Esq.

Administrator

Vasanth Vaidyanathan is an immigration attorney with over 20 years of experience focused exclusively on U.S. immigration and nationality law. He holds a LL.M. from California Western School of Law, San Deigo and advises individuals and businesses on employment and family-based immigration matters, including H-1B, PERM, EB categories, and adjustment of status. He has also been a featured speaker at immigration seminars across the U.S. To reach Vasanth visit: https://www.vnathan.com/

Author's website Author's posts