OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Judge Holds Trump Administration in Contempt Over Deportation

13 sources · updated 2026-09-26
Left 50% Center 50% Right 0%
1 left · 1 center · 0 right

What happened

The Trump administration on Thursday asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency pause of a court order that stops federal officials from deporting migrants to countries other than their own unless those migrants first receive notice of the destination and a chance to contest it. In February, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts struck down the Department of Homeland Security's third-country removal policy; a three-judge 1st Circuit panel largely affirmed that ruling on September 18, and late Wednesday the appeals court dissolved a March stay that had kept the policy in effect, restoring Murphy's restrictions without a government response. Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices the restored order forced cancellation of a flight carrying 70 people with criminal convictions to three countries and created "substantial logistical problems with ongoing removal operations." Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who handles emergency applications from the 1st Circuit, gave the migrants' lawyers until Monday afternoon to respond. This is the third emergency Supreme Court request in the same case; the Court last year stayed an earlier injunction against the policy.
Sourcing check · Fully on the record · 4 articles

4 of 4 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report. Trina Realmuto denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 4 of 4
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Solicitor General D. John Sauer, U.S. Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer, Michael Morley, D. John Sauer and Todd Blanche
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 4 of 4
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: court filing, court ruling, court petition, 1st Circuit order
Credits another outlet 0 of 4
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Each article presents its own reporting.
Unnamed sources 0 of 4
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this.
On-record denial 1
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Trina Realmuto (Breitbart, Sep 25, 02:50 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Sep 25, 02:50 UTC by Breitbart, naming its source. First document in the first report, from Breitbart (court filing).
Not counted 0
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage of Thursday's emergency filing does not report that this is the administration's third request for Supreme Court relief in the same case. Right-leaning coverage leads with that count. The Federalist says the government has been "forced to seek emergency relief" from the Court before, and Daily Wire recounts prior trips in which the justices backed the government. A reader who sees only the latest ask, not the two earlier ones, will treat this as a first override attempt rather than a return trip. The labels for the same destinations diverge. Right-leaning coverage at Breitbart calls them "Safe Third Countries." Left-leaning coverage at ABC News describes the Central African Republic as an "extreme-risk destination." One phrase treats the landing spots as vetted. The other flags armed conflict and terrorism. How many of the people already flown to third countries were told the destination before takeoff?
Bottom line

The Hill's story on the deportation stay never mentions the two earlier Supreme Court rounds in this case. The Federalist leads with the new filing as round three.

The receipts — 6 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • The Thursday filing is the administration's third emergency request to the Supreme Court in this case. contextin The Federalist, Daily Wire, Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The Supreme Court has sided with the administration twice already in this case. legal rulingin Breitbart, The Federalist · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • More than 25,000 migrants have been deported to 29 countries under the policy, the vast majority of them to Mexico. numberin Breitbart · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Latin American men deported to the Central African Republic said they were not informed of their destination until several hours into the flight. individual casein ABC News · absent from right-leaning coverage
  • DHS says 1,432 convicted criminals are awaiting third-country removal. numberin Daily Wire · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • ICE was poised to deport a Peruvian man to the Central African Republic after an appeals court ruling that barred third-country removals. individual casein The Hill · absent from right-leaning coverage
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage presents the request as an effort to restore a ramped-up practice of sending people—including asylum seekers and migrants with no criminal records beyond immigration violations—to nations where they have no citizenship or ties, often with little warning. Outlets highlight Circuit Judge Seth Aframe's conclusion that the right to contest removal based on fear of persecution "means little if one does not receive prior notice of the intended removal destination and a meaningful opportunity to contest that destination," and they report interviews with Latin American men who said they learned only hours into a flight that they were bound for the Central African Republic, which the U.S. classifies as an extreme-risk destination because of armed conflict, violent crime, and terrorism. The Hill notes that after the appeals court ruling, ICE was still poised to send a Peruvian man to the Central African Republic until the panel clarified that third-country removals were barred. These sources stress that agreements now cover nearly three dozen countries, some with repressive governments and human rights abuses, and that Human Rights First counts about 25,000 such deportations under the current crackdown.
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets cast the filing as the government's third run to the Supreme Court to halt what they call judicial sabotage: a Biden-appointed district judge whose prior orders the justices had already stayed, and a First Circuit panel that at 11:36 p.m., "without even allowing the government to respond," restored the blockade. They describe third-country removals as a lawful tool aimed at "some of the worst of the worst criminal aliens" whose home countries refuse to take them, citing DHS figures of 1,432 convicted criminals awaiting such removal and nearly 150 migrants pulled off flights after the stay dissolved. Attorney General Todd Blanche called the practice "an entirely legal and invaluable tool to stem the tide of illegal immigration"; DHS general counsel James Percival said, "What is cruel is allowing criminal illegals who can't be sent home to stay in our communities and victimize anew." The Justice Department argues persecution fears are "notably unlikely to arise" where deportees "lack prior ties," that a vacatur is a forbidden classwide injunction by another name, and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the lower-court actions "will cause significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy."
Our Take (balanced)
The left's strongest argument is that a fear-of-persecution challenge is meaningless without prior notice of the destination and a real chance to object—the First Circuit's stated rationale, reinforced by accounts of deportees who were not told they were bound for high-risk African countries until they were airborne. The right's strongest argument is that home governments often will not accept their own nationals, including people with criminal convictions, that the Supreme Court has already twice let this policy operate pending litigation, and that dissolving the stay overnight without hearing the government immediately stopped removal flights. The unresolved tension is whether diplomatic assurances from a receiving country, plus the absence of prior ties there, can substitute for individualized notice and a chance to contest a third-country destination, or whether due process requires that process even when the executive says it would disable a removal tool the Court has previously allowed to continue.

13 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.