The Supreme Court has cleared the Trump administration to move forward with the removal of a group of immigrants currently being held at a U.S. military installation in Djibouti, allowing officials to send them to South Sudan despite an earlier lower-court ruling that sought to prevent such transfers.

In a short order released this week, the justices confirmed that their previous decision—issued earlier in the case—remains fully in effect. That prior ruling temporarily halted an injunction from a federal judge in Massachusetts, who had restricted the government’s ability to remove immigrants to nations not specifically listed in their original deportation orders. With the high court’s affirmation, the Trump administration now has the legal authority it sought to proceed with the removal of eight individuals detained overseas.

The legal dispute centers on a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy. His earlier decision had prohibited the federal government from sending immigrants to so-called “third countries” unless officials first ensured, through defined procedural safeguards, that the individuals would not face torture upon arrival. Murphy later concluded that the government violated this standard when it attempted to deport eight immigrants to South Sudan—despite the fact that the U.S. has removed its own non-essential personnel from that country and warns Americans to avoid traveling there due to armed conflict, kidnapping, and widespread crime.

According to court filings, the plane carrying the immigrants did not ultimately reach South Sudan. Instead, it landed in Djibouti, where the detainees have remained confined on a U.S. military base while the legal dispute has played out.

Seeking to overturn Murphy’s restrictions, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the lower-court ruling had disrupted the federal government’s ability to conduct “third-country” removals while diplomatic and national-security considerations were at stake. Solicitor General D. John Sauer criticized Murphy’s requirements as “judicially created procedures” that were interfering with critical foreign-policy operations.

Attorneys representing the detainees urged the Supreme Court to leave Murphy’s safeguards in place. They argued that the federal government is not barred from carrying out deportations, but must do so in compliance with long-established laws intended to prevent individuals from being sent into dangerous conditions.

Judge Murphy, for his part, maintained that his previous order was still active even after the Supreme Court issued its initial stay—leading the Trump administration to return to the justices and request further clarification. Sauer told the court that the situation demanded urgent attention, accusing Murphy of defying the Supreme Court’s authority.

The unsigned majority order issued by the justices stated plainly that their earlier stay applied “in full,” effectively signaling that the administration could proceed with removal plans for the men being held in Djibouti.

The decision split the court. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson both dissented, while Justice Elena Kagan sided with the court’s conservative majority despite having opposed the earlier decision to lift Murphy’s restrictions. Kagan explained that although she had not supported allowing third-country removals to continue, she did not see how a district court could enforce an order that the Supreme Court had already paused.

Reports indicate that the detainees at the center of the dispute are citizens of Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, all of whom initially faced deportation orders directing them to their countries of origin—not to South Sudan.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor sharply criticized the administration’s approach. She argued that the government was attempting to move forward with removals that would place these individuals at extreme risk. “What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,” she wrote.

Sotomayor added that the Supreme Court should not have taken up the government’s request at this stage, insisting that executive officials had not made their case before the lower courts. She further chastised the majority for issuing repeated, unexplained decisions in the matter, asserting that the court was faulting lower judges for failing to interpret orders whose rationale had never been publicly articulated. She called that situation “indefensible.”

The decision leaves the Trump administration free to proceed with the disputed removals while broader litigation over the legality of third-country deportations continues. For now, the eight individuals held in Djibouti remain at the center of a widening clash between the judiciary, the executive branch, and international human-rights concerns.