The Supreme Court has opened the door for the Trump administration to proceed with deporting a group of immigrants held at a U.S. military facility in Djibouti, allowing officials to send them to South Sudan despite unresolved legal challenges.

In a short, unsigned order released this week, the justices confirmed that an earlier ruling—one that temporarily blocked a federal judge in Massachusetts from stopping deportations to countries not listed on an individual’s removal notice—remains fully in force. That clarification gives the administration the authority it sought to transfer the eight detainees currently being held overseas.

The dispute stems from an order issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy. Murphy had insisted that the federal government could not remove immigrants to so-called “third countries” unless it first took several steps to ensure that those individuals would not face torture if sent there. When the administration attempted to deport eight men to South Sudan, Murphy concluded that the government had violated his instructions.

South Sudan remains one of the most unstable regions in the world. The United States has withdrawn all non-emergency personnel from the country, and the State Department urges Americans not to travel there, citing armed conflict, kidnappings, and violent crime. The plane transporting the detainees never made it to South Sudan, instead landing in Djibouti, where the men have remained detained at a U.S. military installation while the legal fight unfolds.

Arguing that Murphy’s directives hindered the government’s ability to carry out lawful deportations, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to put the lower-court order on hold. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that Murphy had imposed “judicially created procedures” that were obstructing the broader system of third-country removals and interfering with diplomatic and national-security concerns.

Attorneys representing the detained immigrants pushed back, urging the justices to leave Murphy’s protections intact. They noted that the government was still capable of carrying out deportations but that it must do so in accordance with federal law—especially in cases where serious risk of harm may exist.

Murphy maintained that his order still applied, even after the Supreme Court issued its initial stay. That prompted the administration to return to the high court and ask for a more explicit ruling defining what authority federal officials had over the eight men in Djibouti. Sauer called the situation urgent, accusing Murphy of defying the Supreme Court’s authority and asking the justices to intervene decisively.

The Supreme Court’s majority agreed, saying the earlier stay had paused Murphy’s order in its entirety. Although the ruling contained little explanation, it effectively granted the administration permission to continue with removal plans while the legal battle continues.

The decision divided the justices. Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, while Justice Elena Kagan, though often aligned with them ideologically, sided with the conservative majority. Kagan explained that although she disagreed with the Supreme Court’s initial move to allow third-country removals to resume, she believed a district court could not enforce an order that the Supreme Court had already frozen.

Reports indicate that the eight immigrants at the center of the case are originally from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. None of those countries was the intended destination of their removal flights, which is central to the dispute over whether the administration may send individuals to locations not listed in their formal deportation documents.

In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor issued a forceful critique of the administration’s plans. She argued that federal officials were moving forward with a transfer that could place the detainees in extreme danger. “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 further said that the Supreme Court should not have taken up the government’s request in the first place, noting that federal lawyers had not made the necessary showing in the lower courts. She also criticized the majority for a pattern of issuing significant emergency orders without providing reasoning, creating confusion for lower-court judges tasked with implementing them.

The Supreme Court’s decision leaves the Trump administration free to move forward with the contested removals. Meanwhile, broader questions about the legality and limits of third-country deportations remain unresolved as litigation continues.