PHOTO : AP News

The U.S. Supreme Court has just paved the way for one of the Trump administration’s most controversial immigration policies to take effect—even under a new presidency.

According to Fox News, the high court voted 6–3 on Monday (June 23) to allow migrants to be deported to third-party countries, even if those migrants have zero prior connection to the place they’re being sent.

The policy permits immigration officials to forcibly remove asylum seekers from the United States and send them to an entirely different country—without a hearing, without legal counsel, and without notice.

The decision temporarily blocks a lower court ruling that had previously required the U.S. government to allow migrants an opportunity to argue their case before being relocated to an unfamiliar—and potentially dangerous—destination.

The ruling has sparked immediate backlash from immigration advocates and human rights organizations.

“This ruling is deeply concerning. It removes basic human rights protections for migrants who are already in vulnerable positions,” said Omar Jadwat, director of the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.

Advocates warn that the policy could result in thousands of people being sent to unstable nations with little to no safety infrastructure or humanitarian support.

The third-party nation rule allows deportations to countries such as Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador—even if the person in question has never set foot there or has no family ties or support network in the region.

Critics argue this violates international asylum laws and puts lives in danger.

The 6–3 ruling reflects the current conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which continues to weigh heavily on hot-button political and humanitarian issues. Dissenting justices warned that the decision “strips away fundamental protections.”

“The Court is sanctioning a system that treats people fleeing persecution as disposable,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor in her dissent.

Noir Nation, how do y’all feel about this ruling? Is this about national security or is it another step toward erasing human rights?