WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to sharply curtail protections for immigrants under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), raising alarms among immigration advocates who warn the move could erode due process for individuals at risk of being deported to countries where they may face torture.
According to Vox, the administration’s petition in Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. urges the Court to grant the government sweeping authority to deport immigrants without providing a meaningful opportunity to challenge those removals in court.
The case centers on U.S. obligations under the Convention Against Torture, ratified more than 30 years ago. The treaty prohibits deporting anyone to a country where there are “substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” As Vox explains, federal law affirms that the United States shall not “expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person” to such countries.
Currently, individuals facing deportation may file CAT claims, which require immigration judges to consider evidence and determine whether removal would violate the treaty. As Vox describes, “The immigration judge will listen to the evidence presented by the immigrant and decide whether those concerns are sufficiently serious to prohibit the United States from sending the immigrant to that particular country.”
The Trump administration, however, is seeking to bypass that process. Under its legal theory, the government could deport individuals to any third country willing to accept them—without giving the immigrant a chance to challenge the removal. “Under Trump’s theory, so long as the government identifies any other country willing to accept the immigrant, it may remove them to that country without the immigrant receiving any opportunity to challenge their removal,” Vox explains.
The administration further argues that diplomatic assurances from the receiving country should suffice to satisfy concerns about potential mistreatment. “If a receiving country issues diplomatic assurances of humane treatment, no further procedural safeguards are needed,” Trump’s attorneys contend, according to Vox.
One illustrative case involves a Honduran woman whom an immigration judge found to be at serious risk if returned to Honduras due to threats from an abusive ex-partner. The judge ruled that she could not be sent back. But under the administration’s proposed rule, she could be deported to a third country without a chance to contest whether she would face danger there. “Under Trump’s theory, she may be deported without the need for further procedures,” Vox reports.
A lower federal court rejected the administration’s argument, ruling that it violated immigrants’ due process rights. The court emphasized that individuals must be given “notice that the government is considering sending them to a particular country, within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek relief from a federal court,” according to Vox.
The Trump administration disputes this, arguing that two federal immigration statutes bar district courts from reviewing such deportations. As Vox notes, “under these statutes, an immigrant facing removal cannot challenge their deportation in federal court unless they first exhaust administrative appeals—which would not exist under Trump’s proposed policy.”
If the Supreme Court sides with the administration, immigrants facing deportation could be sent to countries where they risk torture—without ever having their claims reviewed by a judge. Vox warns, “If the Supreme Court rules for Trump, many of the immigrants he hopes to target may be removed from the country without any judge or other neutral adjudicator hearing their claim that they may be tortured.”
Immigration and human rights advocates have strongly criticized the administration’s position, warning that it would effectively dismantle critical protections enshrined in both U.S. and international law. As Vox notes, the change would allow the government to “engage in extraordinarily cruel behavior without any federal judge ever weighing in on the matter.”
At the heart of the case is a broader question about America’s commitment to its international human rights obligations. “The United States has signed a binding treaty stating that it will not deport people to countries where they will be tortured,” Vox reports. “Yet, if the Court sides with Trump, many individuals may never have a chance to assert that their deportation violates that promise.”
Legal experts warn that a ruling in favor of the administration could set a precedent allowing future presidents to circumvent human rights responsibilities by rerouting deportations to third-party nations. Vox cautions, “If Trump’s arguments prevail, future administrations could similarly sidestep obligations under international law by identifying third countries and removing individuals there without judicial review.”
As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the case, its decision could have far-reaching consequences for immigrants seeking protection under CAT and redefine the role of courts in overseeing life-or-death deportation decisions. According to Vox, the central question is whether “the executive branch can effectively nullify America’s promises under the Convention Against Torture by simply choosing to deport individuals to new countries—without any meaningful judicial check.”
