Trump Can Resume Third-Country Deportations Temporarily, US Supreme Court Rules

The US Supreme Court has temporarily cleared the way for President Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own while the justices consider the legality of the policy.

The emergency order issued Tuesday temporarily suspends a lower-court restriction that required migrants facing third-country deportation to receive adequate notice and an opportunity to raise concerns about possible persecution or torture in the country to which they were being sent.

The Supreme Court’s action is not a final ruling on the legality of the deportation policy. Instead, it allows the Trump administration to proceed with the removals for now while the broader legal challenge moves forward.

The justices have agreed to hear arguments on the case in December, when they are expected to consider whether the policy violates migrants’ due-process rights and whether lower courts had the authority to impose restrictions on the deportations.

The dispute centres on the administration’s policy of sending migrants to third countries rather than returning them directly to their countries of citizenship. Such removals have been used where migrants cannot be returned to their home countries or where those countries refuse to accept them.

READ ALSO:

• Flood Cuts Off Part of Agbarho-Ughelli Road, Strands Commuters in Delta
• Dangote Draws Battle Lines as Fuel Import Fight Heads Back to Court
• Tinubu Returns After 30 Days in Europe, Says ‘I’m Healthy and Ready to Work’

The Trump administration has defended the policy as an important immigration enforcement tool, saying receiving countries provide assurances that deported migrants will not be persecuted or tortured.

The legal challenge intensified after a federal judge in Boston ruled that migrants should have a meaningful opportunity to raise safety concerns before being removed to a third country. A federal appeals court subsequently upheld the requirement, prompting the administration to seek emergency intervention from the Supreme Court.

Tuesday’s order temporarily puts that lower-court restriction on hold. This means third-country deportations can continue for now, but the Supreme Court has not yet determined whether the administration’s policy complies with US law.

The Supreme Court’s unsigned emergency order did not provide an explanation for the decision. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated that they would have left the lower-court restriction in place.

The administration has already deported more than 25,000 migrants to third countries, according to figures presented in the legal proceedings. The destinations have included countries in Latin America and Africa.

Government lawyers have argued that lower-court restrictions have created logistical difficulties for immigration authorities, including cancelled deportation flights and delays in carrying out removal orders.

Lawyers representing migrants, however, have challenged the policy on due-process and safety grounds, arguing that people facing removal should have an opportunity to explain why they fear persecution, torture or other serious harm in the countries where they are being sent.

The case therefore remains unresolved. The Supreme Court’s latest order merely allows the deportations to proceed temporarily while the court reviews the underlying legal questions.

The December hearing will give the justices an opportunity to consider the broader dispute and determine whether the administration can continue the policy under the legal framework being challenged.

Until that review is completed and a final ruling is issued, Tuesday’s action should be understood as a temporary suspension of the lower-court restrictions, rather than a final Supreme Court approval of Trump’s third-country deportation policy.

Trump Can Resume Third-Country Deportations Temporarily, US Supreme Court Rules

US Judge Blocks Trump From Tying Counterterrorism Grants to Election Rules

A US federal judge has blocked the Donald Trump administration from conditioning counterterrorism grants for states and local governments on changes to how elections are administered.

US District Judge Amir H. Ali of the District Court for the District of Columbia issued the ruling on Monday, September 28, 2026, finding that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) exceeded the authority granted to it by Congress by attaching the election-related conditions to homeland security funding.

The case followed a lawsuit filed by Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee; Columbus, Ohio; and several Texas counties, including Harris, El Paso, Dallas and Travis counties.

The local governments challenged conditions FEMA had attached to its 2026 Homeland Security Grant Program, arguing that Congress authorised the programme to help communities prevent, prepare for and respond to terrorism and other security threats, rather than to regulate routine election administration.

The programme provides more than $1 billion in federal funding to state, local and tribal governments. Under the policy challenged in court, FEMA planned to withhold 20 per cent of certain grant awards until recipients complied with specified election-related requirements.

READ ALSO:

• School Attack: 13-Year-Old Student Kills Teacher, Injures Two
• Bauchi Woman Arrested After Co-Wife Dies in Alleged Pestle Attack
• Breaking: Tinubu Ends Extended European Vacation, Departs Paris for Nigeria

Among the requirements were plans to move away from voting systems that use QR codes or barcodes to count ballots and toward equipment that accepts hand-marked paper ballots.

Recipients also had to demonstrate that they conducted a manual audit of at least five per cent of ballots, reconcile the number of voters who participated in federal elections with the number of ballots cast, and use the Department of Homeland Security’s Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to verify citizenship information in voter-registration records.

The conditions also covered citizenship verification for people working at polling places or operating election systems.

The Trump administration defended the requirements as measures intended to strengthen election security against threats including foreign interference and cyberattacks.

However, Judge Ali ruled that the disputed conditions were not sufficiently connected to the purpose of the counterterrorism grants and that Congress had not authorised FEMA to use the programme to impose the election-administration requirements.

In his 24-page ruling, Ali distinguished between measures designed to protect election infrastructure from security threats and requirements governing routine election procedures, such as ballot formats, voter-roll administration and election audits.

The ruling prevents the administration from conditioning the affected Homeland Security Grant Program funding on compliance with the challenged election requirements while the litigation continues.

A separate lawsuit brought by a coalition of states challenging similar conditions remains pending.

The case comes ahead of the November 3, 2026 US midterm elections, adding another legal dispute to the wider debate over the division of authority between the federal government and states in administering US elections.

The latest ruling does not determine whether the individual election-security measures are effective or appropriate as policy. Instead, it addresses whether FEMA had the legal authority to make compliance with those measures a condition for receiving counterterrorism funding.

The broader Homeland Security Grant Program remains in place, while the administration and the plaintiffs may pursue further legal proceedings.

US Judge Blocks Trump From Tying Counterterrorism Grants to Election Rules

Five Arrested Near US-Used RAF Fairford in UK Terror Probe

British police have arrested five men near RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire over suspected explosives offences, with the suspects subsequently detained on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.

The arrests followed a report at about 12:45 a.m. on Sunday, September 27, 2026, concerning three suspicious vehicles that appeared to be travelling towards the air base. Armed officers responded and arrested the five men in the nearby Whelford area.

According to Counter Terrorism Policing, the men were initially arrested on suspicion of offences under the Explosives Act before being further arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act contrary to Section 5 of the Terrorism Act. All five remained in custody as investigators continued gathering evidence.

The incident prompted authorities to declare a major incident, with about 85 households evacuated from Whelford as a precaution.

The evacuated residents were taken to a nearby leisure centre while police established a cordon around the vehicles. The Army’s specialist explosive ordnance disposal team was deployed to examine the vehicles and assess any potential threat.

Counter Terrorism Policing said the investigation was still in its early stages and that officers were working with Gloucestershire Police and other agencies to establish the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Police have not publicly confirmed that an attack on RAF Fairford was planned or that the suspects had entered the military installation. Investigators are examining why the vehicles were in the area and what materials, if any, were associated with them.

READ ALSO:

• Kano Upgrades Five PHCs to General Hospitals, Begins Assessment
• Iran Claims Capture of Second US Underwater Drone in Strait of Hormuz
• Kubwa Explosion: Vehicle Crashes Into Gas Outlet, Damages Nine Shops

The investigation is particularly significant because RAF Fairford is a British military air base used by the United States Air Force. The installation hosts US military personnel and has been used by American aircraft during operations connected with the conflict involving Iran.

The US Air Force said its personnel at Fairford remained vigilant but declined to disclose specific force-protection measures for operational security reasons.

The security operation involved armed police, roadblocks and specialist bomb-disposal personnel. A 400-metre cordon was established around the vehicles while the evacuation was carried out.

Investigators are expected to examine the vehicles, materials and other evidence recovered during the operation as they seek to establish whether there was a planned attack and, if so, its intended target and motive.

The arrests have drawn additional attention because of heightened security around US military installations in Britain. RAF Fairford has become strategically important because of its use by US forces during the conflict involving Iran.

However, British authorities have not publicly linked the five suspects to Iran, any other state or a particular extremist organisation. Any claims about their motive or intended target remain subject to investigation.

The US military has said it remains in close coordination with British authorities and continues to take appropriate measures to protect its personnel and facilities.

British officials have said the incident is believed to be contained, although a substantial security presence is expected to remain in the area while investigators complete their work.

Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, the UK Counter Terrorism Policing senior national coordinator, said investigators were still working to establish what happened.

The five men remain in custody and have not been convicted of any offence. The allegations against them will have to be tested through the British legal process as the UK counter-terrorism investigation continues.

Five Arrested Near US-Used RAF Fairford in UK Terror Probe