Last week, the Supreme Court let the Trump administration resume deporting people to countries other than their own. The 6-3 order is temporary, and the justices will hear arguments on Dec. 9. My view is simple. Protecting citizens is government’s first job, voters hired this administration to do it, and Congress should write a fast, lawful process so judges don’t have to improvise one.
The stay pauses a February ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, largely upheld by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that required written notice and a chance to object before removal to a third country. Nobody has decided whether the administration’s process is lawful. The administration says the policy has run for 15 months and has removed thousands of people.
These removals apply to people already ordered removed. When a home country refuses them, the law lets the government send them to another country that will accept them. The alternative is detention, and the court held in Zadvydas v. Davis that removable people can’t be held indefinitely. In July 2025, DHS said five men sent to Eswatini had convictions that included murder and child rape. Their home countries were Vietnam, Jamaica, Cuba, Yemen, and Laos, and four of the five have historically resisted taking back some citizens. Every week of delay in cases like those leaves such men in custody at taxpayer expense or, once the Zadvydas clock runs out, possibly on the street. Justice Department lawyers told the Court that DHS canceled a flight carrying 70 people, some with criminal records, after the lower-court rulings.
Critics picture black sites. The tracking data tells a duller story. Refugees International and Human Rights First count more than 25,000 third-country removals to at least 29 countries, about 20,000 of them (roughly 80%) to Mexico, a neighbor with a land border and a long way from Devil’s Island. Those tallies come from advocacy groups and don’t separate violent offenders from everyone else, so treat them as a floor for debate and not a verdict.
Eight years in private security and executive protection taught me that threats keep their own schedule. Border policy works the same way. CBP recorded more than 10.8 million encounters nationwide from fiscal 2021 through 2024, according to a House Homeland Security tally of agency data. Encounters count events, so repeat crossers inflate the figure. Still, no agency handles volume like that with one improvised hearing at a time.
Consider Martha’s Vineyard. In September 2022, nearly 50 migrants landed on the island that gave us the movie Jaws. Within days, then-Gov. Charlie Baker moved them to Joint Base Cape Cod, saying the island lacked the resources to house them long term. Hospitality has a carrying capacity, and even the most welcoming communities find it.
The other side deserves a fair hearing. Challengers told the Supreme Court that deportees have faced beatings, sexual assault, and disappearance abroad. Those are allegations, and a person with a real fear of torture should get to say so before boarding a plane. Not every person on a flight has a criminal record. The government replies that finding willing countries is a delicate diplomatic endeavor that a patchwork of court-ordered procedures can wreck. Both sides have a point, which is why Congress should draw the line instead of a single district judge.
IN DELAWARE, THE STATE LINE BEATS THE BORDER
So draw it. Amend 8 U.S.C. 1231(b) to set a fixed notice window of 48 hours, require a prompt fear screening by an asylum officer, conducted by video at the detention site with counsel allowed to attend, and publish the list of receiving countries with the written assurances behind each. Judges get a clear standard to review. DHS gets a clear rule to follow. Detainees get a hearing before departure, while it still matters.
My son graduated from West Point, and my brother spent his career as a Green Beret weapons sergeant. In my family, the lesson is that a mission without clear rules of engagement fails twice, once in the field and once in the courtroom. The court bought time. Congress should spend it.
Jay Rogers is a financial professional with more than 30 years of experience in private equity, private credit, hedge funds, and wealth management. He has a Bachelor of Science in criminal justice from Northeastern University and has completed postgraduate studies at UCLA, the University of Pennsylvania, and Harvard. He writes about issues in finance, constitutional law, national security, human nature, and public policy.