Supreme Court considers third-country deportation appeal
- Washington paid 35 foreign governments millions to imprison deportees without local ties.
- Federal judges halted third-country deportations, sending the legal battle to the Supreme Court.
- Over 5,000 deportees landed in foreign cells, hotels, or active conflict zones.
The paper trail ended in Eswatini. Washington paid foreign monarchies millions to take non-citizens off its hands.
On September 28, 2026, The Daily detailed how the federal government circumvented domestic legal protections by sending deportees to countries where they possessed no familial, cultural, or geographical connections. Reporter Nicholas Casey estimated that roughly 5,000 individuals ended up in foreign maximum-security prisons, hotel detentions, or active war zones. Rather than releasing non-citizens under supervision as federal law traditionally requires when home nations refuse repatriation, officials negotiated financial payouts to approximately 35 third-party states.
Eswatini collected $5.1 million. El Salvador secured $6 million.
For the deportees, landing overseas meant losing all legal recourse. In Eswatini, an absolute monarchy without free speech protections, arrival meant immediate stripping, administrative numbering, and indefinite imprisonment without local charges. Casey compared the administrative architecture directly to Guantanamo Bay, noting that relocating individuals outside US physical territory effectively severed their access to constitutional due process and legal counsel.
The case of Roberto Mosquera highlights the operational severity. Mosquera arrived in the United States from Cuba at age 12, established a career as a plumber, and raised a family following a 1990s prison sentence. After being detained during a routine check-in with immigration authorities, he was flown to an Eswatini cell for 13 months, resorting to a 30-day hunger strike simply to secure access to a telephone.
Court injunctions offer zero protection once an outbound aircraft touches down.
Federal district judges intervened by halting third-country removals, ruling that the strategy violates fundamental due process provisions. Under established federal immigration law, individuals cannot be forcibly transferred to jurisdictions where they face clear threats of torture or arbitrary detention. In response, administration attorneys filed an emergency appeal asking the Supreme Court to lift the judicial stays while formal appeals proceed.
The high court now holds the final constitutional ruling.