Stephen Miller Named Chief of Staff: Can US Deportations Violate International Law?
Introduction
US deportations can violate international law when authorities transfer individuals to countries where they face prohibited risks of persecution or torture, including through an intermediate country. Stephen Miller’s appointment as White House chief of staff has renewed attention to these legal restrictions because of his documented involvement in President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement policies. The United States retains broad authority to remove noncitizens, but that authority remains subject to binding international obligations and applicable federal law.
On November 6, 2026, Trump announced that Miller would replace Susie Wiles as White House chief of staff, effective November 9. Miller had served as deputy chief of staff for policy and had been closely involved in developing and coordinating the administration’s immigration agenda. His promotion comes as the government continues an extensive deportation program and expands arrangements allowing individuals to be transferred to countries other than their own (White House, 2026; Reuters, 2026).
The legal questions extend beyond the number of people deported. They concern the destinations selected, the treatment individuals may face after removal, and whether authorities provide an effective opportunity to establish a risk of persecution or torture. These concerns are particularly significant in third-country deportations, where the receiving state may have no previous connection to the person transferred.
A pending Supreme Court case, Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., concerns the procedures governing such removals. Its outcome may affect the government’s ability to carry out third-country transfers under existing federal law. The broader international-law questions depend on the United States’ treaty obligations, the circumstances of individual removals, and the distinction between state responsibility and the legal responsibility of particular officials.
1. Stephen Miller's Appointment and Immigration Policy
Stephen Miller’s appointment places an established immigration policy adviser in one of the most influential administrative positions within the White House. The chief of staff coordinates presidential decision-making, supervises White House operations, and facilitates communication between the president and executive agencies. Although the position carries substantial political influence, its holder does not independently possess the statutory powers assigned to immigration authorities.
Trump announced the appointment on November 6, 2026, describing Miller as a trusted adviser. Wiles, who had served as chief of staff since the beginning of Trump's second administration, was announced as moving to the president's political operation. Miller was scheduled to assume his new position on November 9 (White House, 2026).
The appointment indicates continuity with an existing immigration enforcement strategy rather than the creation of a new legal framework. Deportation authority remains governed by federal legislation, administrative regulations, constitutional requirements, and applicable international obligations. Miller's institutional position is relevant to the development and coordination of policy, but it does not establish the legality of any particular removal.
1.1 Miller's Documented Role in Deportation Policy
Miller has been associated with Trump's immigration agenda since the 2016 presidential campaign. During the first administration, he served as a senior adviser and participated in the development of immigration and border-control policies. His responsibilities in the second administration expanded through his appointment as deputy chief of staff for policy.
Reuters described Miller in November 2026 as a central figure in the administration's immigration enforcement agenda. His documented influence includes policy coordination, public advocacy of stronger enforcement measures, and involvement in efforts to increase immigration arrests (Reuters, 2026).
One relevant episode occurred in May 2025. Axios reported on May 28, 2025, that Miller and then–Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had pressed Immigration and Customs Enforcement leadership to pursue approximately 3,000 arrests per day during a May 21 meeting. The account was based on information from people familiar with internal discussions. It provides evidence of reported pressure to accelerate enforcement, rather than a publicly issued directive establishing Miller's personal authority over individual removal decisions (Axios, 2025).
An arrest target is different from a deportation target. Arrests may be followed by detention, release, immigration proceedings, or eventual removal. The reported objective also does not establish the number of deportations subsequently completed or demonstrate that the target remained unchanged throughout 2026.
Miller's participation in developing immigration policy is well documented. That involvement should be distinguished from operational decisions made by immigration officers, determinations issued by immigration courts, and transfers undertaken under particular statutory authorities. Evidence of policy influence does not independently establish participation in a specific removal later challenged as unlawful.
1.2 The Authority of the White House Chief of Staff
The White House chief of staff occupies a coordinating position rather than an independent department established by immigration legislation. The office influences which policy questions reach the president, how executive priorities are communicated, and how agencies coordinate their work.
Immigration enforcement authority remains principally with the Department of Homeland Security and its relevant components, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection. Immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts exercise separate adjudicatory or reviewing functions within their respective jurisdictions.
The chief of staff cannot independently amend the Immigration and Nationality Act, suspend obligations under the Convention Against Torture, or disregard binding judicial orders. Executive direction remains subject to the legal powers of the agencies carrying it out.
Miller's promotion may increase his ability to coordinate immigration policy across the administration. Whether that influence produces new enforcement procedures, changes in agency practice, or different litigation positions cannot be established from the appointment announcement alone. As of November 7, 2026, his announced tenure had not yet begun.
2. The Scale of US Deportations and Third-Country Transfers
The second Trump administration has pursued an extensive immigration enforcement program. Its stated priorities include executing final removal orders, increasing arrests within the United States, and securing cooperation from foreign governments willing to receive individuals who cannot readily be returned to their countries of nationality.
An October 2026 analysis by the Migration Policy Institute estimated that approximately 980,000 deportations occurred between January 20, 2025, and July 31, 2026. The figure covers several administrative categories rather than exclusively formal removals. The Institute based its calculations on publicly available Customs and Border Protection data obtained through Freedom of Information Act disclosures and ICE records obtained by the Deportation Data Project (Rosenblum, 2026).
Of the estimated total, approximately 580,000 were formal removals, 300,000 were enforcement returns, and 110,000 were administrative returns. These rounded categories correspond to approximately 59 percent, 30 percent, and 11 percent of the overall figure.
Formal removal generally involves the execution of a removal order and carries specific legal consequences for future admission. Enforcement returns involve different administrative mechanisms, while administrative returns, as defined in the Institute's analysis, concern individuals who had not entered the United States. Treating every category as an identical deportation procedure would misrepresent the enforcement system.
The Migration Policy Institute also identified an increasing proportion of deportations arising from arrests inside the United States. Interior arrests accounted for an estimated 28 percent of deportations between January 20 and December 31, 2025, rising to 34 percent during the first six months of 2026 and 39 percent in July.
The Institute estimated that approximately 190,000 of the 980,000 deportations involved individuals with criminal convictions. The remaining approximately 790,000 involved people without recorded criminal convictions in the datasets used for the analysis. These figures describe the affected population; they do not independently establish whether a person was legally entitled to remain or qualified for international protection.
The distinction between criminal convictions, pending charges, immigration violations, and protection eligibility is legally consequential. A person with no criminal conviction may still be subject to a valid removal order. Conversely, a person convicted of a crime may remain protected against removal to a country where the applicable legal threshold for torture risk is satisfied.
2.1 The Expansion of Third-Country Deportations
Third-country deportations have become a significant feature of the administration's enforcement strategy. These transfers involve individuals sent to countries other than those of their nationality or habitual residence, sometimes under arrangements negotiated specifically to facilitate removal.
An October 15, 2026, investigation by Emma Empociello, Greta Garcia, and Jalil Melendez for the Migration Policy Institute identified more than 25,000 transfers to at least 30 third countries since January 2025. Approximately 80 percent involved Mexico. The researchers also identified arrangements with at least 35 governments, although not every agreement had resulted in documented transfers (Empociello, Garcia and Melendez, 2026).
The geographical scope extends beyond neighboring countries. Arrangements have involved states in Africa, Latin America, and other regions, including destinations where some transferred individuals reportedly had no established residence, nationality, family connection, or previous personal ties.
Human Rights Watch published a separate investigation on October 8, 2026, examining expulsions to African countries. Using ICE data and additional investigative material, it identified more than 500 people transferred to African states other than their countries of origin between January 20, 2025, and August 5, 2026. Its report documented allegations of inadequate notice, detention following arrival, mistreatment, and onward transfers exposing some individuals to serious protection risks (Human Rights Watch, 2026).
The Migration Policy Institute and Human Rights Watch examined different populations, reporting periods, and sources. Their figures should not be added together or treated as directly interchangeable. The broader numerical estimates establish the geographical extent of the practice, while the Human Rights Watch investigation concentrates on particular African destinations and the treatment of people transferred there.
The legal questions surrounding Trump's third-country deportation policy arise because an agreement between governments does not independently determine whether a particular transfer satisfies international protection requirements. The receiving country's willingness to accept someone is relevant to immigration administration, but the individual's safety requires a separate assessment.
3. When Deportation Becomes an International-Law Violation
International law recognizes the authority of states to regulate the admission, residence, and removal of noncitizens. The existence of immigration controls is not itself inconsistent with international legal obligations. States may generally enforce lawful removal decisions, including against individuals who have no continuing legal entitlement to remain.
That authority is limited by rules protecting individuals against particular forms of serious harm. The most relevant obligations arise under international refugee law and the Convention Against Torture. They operate through different legal standards, apply to different categories of risk, and do not always provide identical remedies.
A deportation may breach international law when it exposes an individual to danger prohibited by an applicable obligation. Procedural deficiencies may also be legally significant, particularly where effective procedures are necessary to prevent prohibited removal. The precise legal conclusion depends on the treaty, statute, or constitutional provision governing the claim.
3.1 Non-Refoulement Under the 1967 Refugee Protocol
The principle of non-refoulement prohibits certain forms of return to territories where a protected individual would face serious danger. Its central refugee-law formulation appears in Article 33(1) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.
The provision prohibits returning a qualifying refugee to territories where the person's life or freedom would be threatened because of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The prohibition concerns the danger associated with return rather than the administrative classification of the removal procedure.
The United States is not a party to the 1951 Convention itself. It acceded to the 1967 Protocol on November 1, 1968. Article I of that Protocol requires participating states to apply the Convention's relevant substantive provisions, including Article 33 (United Nations, 1967).
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees explains in paragraph 28 of its Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status that recognition of refugee status is declaratory. A person meeting the Convention's definition may qualify as a refugee before an authority formally recognizes that status (UNHCR, 2019).
This interpretation is relevant to removal procedures because protection claims may need to be examined before authorities can determine whether a transfer is permissible. Refugee status does not arise solely from the administrative decision recognizing it, although eligibility depends on the facts and legal criteria of the particular case.
The broader principle of non-refoulement also operates through international human-rights obligations distinct from the Refugee Convention. The applicable legal source must be identified because different treaties provide protection against different risks and establish different conditions.
Article 33(2) establishes limited exceptions concerning refugees reasonably regarded as dangers to national security or, following final conviction of a particularly serious crime, dangers to the community. A criminal conviction alone does not necessarily satisfy the latter exception.
These refugee-law exceptions do not authorize removal prohibited by the Convention Against Torture. An individual excluded from one form of refugee protection may remain protected against transfer to a country where the applicable torture-risk threshold is met.
3.2 Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture
Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture prohibits a state party from expelling, returning, or extraditing a person to another state where substantial grounds exist for believing that the individual would be in danger of torture.
Unlike Article 33(2) of the Refugee Convention, Article 3 contains no exception permitting transfer to torture because an individual has committed a serious crime or presents a national-security threat. Its protection is not confined to individuals qualifying as refugees.
The applicable danger must involve torture within the Convention's legal meaning. Article 1 addresses the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering for specified purposes, including obtaining information, punishment, intimidation, coercion, or discrimination, where the conduct involves a public official or another person acting in an official capacity, including through consent or acquiescence.
The definition excludes pain or suffering arising only from lawful sanctions within the Convention's terms. The United States ratified the treaty subject to understandings concerning specific intent, mental suffering, official acquiescence, and other elements of Article 1. These qualifications are reflected in the domestic implementing framework.
Article 3 requires consideration of all relevant circumstances, including, where applicable, a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant, or mass human-rights violations in the receiving country. General country conditions are relevant evidence, although the assessment must establish the legally required risk facing the individual concerned.
The United States ratified the Convention Against Torture in 1994, subject to reservations, understandings, and declarations. In relation to Article 3, it adopted an understanding interpreting substantial grounds for believing that torture may occur as requiring a determination that torture is more likely than not.
This interpretation is reflected in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(c)(2), which generally requires an applicant seeking protection under the Convention Against Torture to establish that torture is more likely than not following removal to the proposed country. The definition governing domestic CAT determinations appears in 8 C.F.R. § 1208.18.
The Committee Against Torture adopted General Comment No. 4 in 2017 to explain its interpretation of Article 3. It identifies a foreseeable, personal, present, and real risk as central to the Committee's assessment of claims. The General Comment provides authoritative treaty-body guidance but does not amend the Convention or itself constitute a binding judicial judgment.
The distinction between the treaty's language, the United States' ratification understanding, and its implementing regulations is essential when assessing the legality of a proposed transfer. The Committee's interpretation and the standards applied in US immigration proceedings should not be described as identical without qualification.
3.3 US Immigration Law and International Protection
US law provides several distinct mechanisms protecting individuals against removal. Asylum, statutory withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture differ in eligibility, evidentiary requirements, legal consequences, and the forms of relief they provide.
Asylum is governed principally by 8 U.S.C. § 1158. Eligibility generally requires satisfaction of the refugee definition, subject to statutory limitations and exceptions. A grant of asylum provides a recognized legal status and associated benefits, while denial of asylum does not necessarily resolve every possible claim against removal.
Statutory withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) prohibits removal to a country where an eligible person's life or freedom would be threatened on specified protected grounds. In INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421 (1987), the Supreme Court distinguished the evidentiary standards applicable to asylum and withholding of removal.
Protection under the Convention Against Torture is implemented principally through section 2242 of the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 and federal regulations, including 8 C.F.R. §§ 1208.16–1208.18.
Under these regulations, an eligible individual who establishes the required risk of torture may receive withholding of removal under CAT. Where a person satisfies the torture-risk standard but is subject to a mandatory bar preventing withholding, the regulations provide for deferral of removal under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.17.
Deferral prohibits removal to the specified country while the relevant conditions persist, subject to the regulatory provisions governing review and termination. It does not confer asylum, permanent residence, or an unrestricted right to remain in the United States.
These forms of protection generally concern a particular destination. Under 8 C.F.R. § 1208.16(f), withholding or deferral does not itself prevent removal to another country. The alternative destination must nevertheless satisfy applicable statutory and protection requirements.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides complementary protection through provisions including Articles 6 and 7, concerning life and the prohibition of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. The Human Rights Committee has interpreted these provisions as imposing non-removal obligations in certain circumstances involving a real risk of irreparable harm (Human Rights Committee, 2004, General Comment No. 31, para. 12).
The United States has ratified the Covenant with reservations, understandings, and declarations, including a declaration that specified provisions are not self-executing. Its international obligations and the availability of privately enforceable domestic remedies must consequently be distinguished.
4. Third-Country Deportations and the Risk of Refoulement
Third-country removal introduces legal questions that do not always arise when a person is returned directly to a country of nationality. The receiving state may have no previous relationship with the individual, and the transfer may depend on diplomatic arrangements whose operational details are not fully public.
International law does not categorically prohibit a state from transferring a noncitizen to a country other than the person's country of origin. The legal assessment depends on the authority for removal, the receiving state's willingness to admit the individual where required, and compliance with applicable protection obligations.
Difficulties arise when the selected destination creates new risks or facilitates subsequent removal to a country from which the individual was already protected. A receiving government's agreement to accept someone cannot, on its own, establish that the transfer is safe or lawful.
4.1 Removal Orders and Safe-Third-Country Agreements
US statutory law contains a framework for selecting the destination of individuals subject to final removal orders. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2), the selection process generally begins with a country designated by the individual, subject to statutory exceptions, and then provides for other destinations under specified conditions.
Where removal to countries identified through the preceding statutory provisions is unavailable, section 1231(b)(2)(E) establishes further alternatives. Subparagraph (vii) permits removal to another country whose government will accept the individual when removal to the countries described in the preceding clauses is impracticable, inadvisable, or impossible.
The application of this statutory sequence has been contested in litigation. The existence of destination-selection authority does not extinguish separate restrictions arising from withholding of removal or protection against torture.
Safe-third-country agreements operate through a different legal mechanism. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(2)(A), certain agreements may affect access to asylum procedures in the United States when an individual can be transferred to another country under the statute's specified conditions.
Those conditions include the absence of a threat to life or freedom on the relevant protected grounds and access to a full and fair procedure for determining an asylum claim or equivalent temporary protection.
These mechanisms should not be conflated. One concerns selecting a destination for someone already subject to removal; the other concerns circumstances in which an asylum application may be considered elsewhere.
The government's position is that third-country transfers provide a mechanism for enforcing final removal orders when repatriation is unavailable or impracticable. The Congressional Research Service reported in October 2026 that the administration also regards such transfers as serving immigration enforcement, deterrence, and national-security objectives (Congressional Research Service, 2026).
Those policy objectives do not independently establish that an individual can lawfully be removed to a particular destination. Compliance requires consideration of both the authority to select the country and the protection obligations applicable to the proposed transfer.
4.2 Diplomatic Assurances and Protection Against Torture
Diplomatic assurances are commitments by a receiving government concerning the treatment of an individual after transfer. In immigration cases, they may include undertakings that the person will not be persecuted, tortured, or subsequently returned to an unsafe country.
Such assurances can provide relevant evidence when authorities assess the proposed transfer. Their legal significance depends on their content, reliability, and the circumstances of the receiving state.
A general commitment against torture may offer limited practical protection where the receiving government lacks effective control over detention facilities, has a documented record of mistreatment, or cannot prevent onward removal. More specific assurances supported by credible institutions and effective monitoring may carry greater evidentiary weight.
In General Comment No. 4, paragraph 20, the Committee Against Torture warned that diplomatic assurances must not be used to circumvent Article 3 where substantial grounds exist for believing that a person would face torture in the receiving state.
The Committee's position recognizes that diplomatic assurances cannot displace the substantive prohibition against refoulement. The existence of a bilateral undertaking does not resolve a protection claim where the circumstances establish the prohibited risk.
US regulations also address diplomatic assurances. Under 8 C.F.R. §§ 208.18(c) and 1208.18(c), assurances obtained from a foreign government may be considered through a process involving the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.
The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, determines whether assurances are sufficiently reliable to permit removal consistent with Article 3. The regulations provide that, when assurances are accepted under this mechanism, the individual's CAT claim is not considered further by an immigration judge, the Board of Immigration Appeals, or an asylum officer.
The contemporary dispute concerns whether assurances considered credible through executive procedures can justify third-country removal without additional individualized notice and fear-based screening.
The government relies on diplomatic assessments and the statutory authority to execute final removal orders. Challengers argue that such procedures may prevent individuals from identifying risks particular to the proposed destination. The legal significance of that disagreement is central to the pending proceedings in DHS v. D.V.D.
4.3 Indirect Refoulement and Onward Deportation
Indirect refoulement occurs when an initial transfer exposes a person to a foreseeable subsequent removal to a country presenting prohibited harm. An individual may be sent to an intermediate state and later returned to the country from which protection was originally granted.
The relevant inquiry extends beyond the immediate destination. Authorities may need to consider whether the receiving country has adequate protection procedures, whether the individual can lawfully remain there, and whether onward removal presents a sufficiently established risk.
The possibility may arise from formal policy, inadequate asylum procedures, detention practices, or arrangements facilitating repatriation. The Committee Against Torture addresses such situations in General Comment No. 4, paragraph 12, including onward deportation to a country where the person would face a prohibited risk of torture.
Proof of an eventual onward transfer may be important, but Article 3 is preventive. Its application concerns the danger established at the time of removal rather than requiring that torture subsequently occur.
The analysis must distinguish responsibility for the initial transfer from responsibility for subsequent conduct by the receiving government. An independent decision by another state is not automatically attributable to the United States.
Questions concerning extraterritorial jurisdiction in international law may also arise where state authorities exercise control over individuals or enforcement operations outside national territory. Such questions depend on the treaty involved, the nature of the asserted jurisdiction, and the degree of authority exercised.
Where US authorities transfer a person despite a sufficiently established and foreseeable risk of prohibited onward removal, the initial decision may engage the United States' international responsibility. Subsequent conduct by the receiving state requires a separate assessment under the obligations binding that government.
5. DHS v. D.V.D. and the Supreme Court's Pending Review
Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426, concerns the legality of the federal government's procedures for removing individuals to third countries. The case arose from challenges to guidance governing the selection of alternative destinations and the protections available before those transfers occur.
The litigation addresses federal statutory authority, constitutional due process, and legislation implementing the Convention Against Torture. It does not concern the proposition that every third-country deportation is inherently prohibited.
As of November 7, 2026, the Supreme Court had granted review but had not decided the merits. Interim orders allowing the disputed guidance to operate do not constitute a final determination that the policy complies with every applicable legal obligation.
5.1 The DHS Guidance on Third-Country Removals
DHS began developing expanded third-country removal procedures in February 2025. A March 30 memorandum issued under then–Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem addressed the use of diplomatic assurances and fear-based protection procedures.
Further guidance issued on July 9, 2025, by then–acting ICE Director Todd Lyons clarified implementation following an earlier Supreme Court stay. The memorandum explained how officials should proceed depending on whether the receiving country had provided assurances against persecution or torture.
Under the disputed procedures, where the State Department considers the receiving government's assurances credible, ICE may proceed without further individualized procedures specifically addressing fear of the third country.
Where satisfactory assurances are unavailable, ICE must provide notice identifying the proposed destination in a language the individual understands. The guidance generally requires at least 24 hours between service of notice and removal.
In exigent circumstances, the period may be reduced to six hours, provided the individual has a reasonable means and opportunity to consult an attorney. The July guidance requires senior DHS legal approval for such expedited removals (Congressional Research Service, 2026).
The procedures do not require ICE officers to ask every individual affirmatively whether they fear the destination. A person must express the relevant fear to trigger the screening mechanism described in the guidance.
When an individual affirmatively expresses fear of persecution or torture in the proposed country, ICE is directed to refer the matter to US Citizenship and Immigration Services. The screening considers whether the individual meets the applicable withholding or CAT protection threshold.
If the relevant standard is met, further procedures may involve an immigration court or the Board of Immigration Appeals, depending on the individual's prior proceedings. If the standard is not met, the guidance permits removal to the proposed destination.
The plaintiffs challenged whether these arrangements provide effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise protection claims. They argued that the policy could expose individuals to irreversible harm without the safeguards required by federal law.
The government defended its authority to select alternative destinations and relied on the procedures established by the guidance and the use of diplomatic assurances. It also contested federal-court jurisdiction and the permissible scope of judicial relief.
These competing positions concern specific administrative procedures. Neither establishes that every individual transferred under the policy faced torture, nor that every transfer satisfied applicable protection requirements.
5.2 The First Circuit Judgment and Supreme Court Stay
Federal district court proceedings in Massachusetts initially produced protective relief requiring notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise certain claims concerning third-country removal. The Supreme Court stayed the preliminary injunction on June 23, 2025, while litigation continued.
On February 25, 2026, the district court entered final judgment against the challenged DHS guidance. It issued declarations concerning destination selection, notice, and opportunities to contest removal, and set aside the guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit issued its decision on September 18, 2026, in D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212.
The appellate court distinguished the plaintiffs' claim concerning the statutory sequence for selecting removal destinations from their claims concerning notice and fear-based protection procedures.
On the destination-sequencing issue, the court concluded that the representative plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. It dismissed that claim and vacated two declarations concerning the government's obligation to seek removal first to countries designated by the individual or connected to the person's nationality.
That disposition did not establish that the government's interpretation of the statutory sequence was correct. The court did not resolve the sequencing claim on its merits because the representative plaintiffs had not demonstrated the injury necessary to pursue it.
On the remaining issues, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment. Its conclusions included the requirement for effective notice and a meaningful opportunity to raise persecution-related claims under the applicable immigration statutes and regulations.
The appellate court also upheld the determination that the guidance failed to provide the notice and opportunity required for fear-of-torture claims under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. It affirmed the setting aside of the challenged guidance under the Administrative Procedure Act.
On September 29, 2026, the Supreme Court granted the government's stay application and agreed to review the case. The order stayed the district court's February 25 judgment pending the Supreme Court's disposition. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson indicated that they would have denied the stay.
The Court identified questions concerning federal-court jurisdiction, the authority to grant classwide declaratory relief and vacate agency guidance under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), and whether the DHS procedures violate 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b), constitutional due process, or the legislation and regulations implementing the Convention Against Torture.
Oral argument was scheduled for December 9, 2026. The September order allowed the disputed guidance to remain operative while the Supreme Court considered the case, but it did not resolve those substantive questions.
A final ruling may clarify the domestic procedures required before third-country transfers. Its conclusions will need to be read in relation to the precise questions decided. A judgment concerning jurisdiction or statutory remedies, for example, would not necessarily determine every international-law issue associated with the transfers.
6. Documented Deportation Cases and Contested Legal Breaches
The legal consequences of deportation practices are best assessed through identifiable cases rather than generalized descriptions of immigration enforcement. Existing removal orders, findings concerning personal risk, the destination selected, and the procedures used can materially affect whether a particular transfer is lawful.
Some cases involve acknowledged violations of domestic protection requirements. Others involve allegations of torture risk, inadequate notice, or onward removal that remain dependent on disputed evidence.
The distinction between established findings and contested claims is particularly important where serious allegations concern government officials or foreign detention authorities. Neither political responsibility nor an international-law breach can be inferred solely from association with a particular deportation program.
6.1 Kilmar Abrego Garcia and an Unlawful Removal
The removal of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia provides an example in which the United States acknowledged that a transfer violated an existing domestic protection restriction.
Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador on March 15, 2025, despite a withholding-of-removal order prohibiting his return to that country. The government acknowledged before the Supreme Court that the transfer was illegal and described it as an administrative error.
The government also advanced allegations concerning his purported association with MS-13, which Abrego Garcia disputed. Those allegations were separate from the existence and legal effect of the withholding order.
In Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, the Supreme Court addressed the government's obligations following the improper transfer. Its April 10, 2025, order preserved the requirement to facilitate his release from Salvadoran custody and ensure that his case was handled as it would have been absent the unlawful removal.
The Court also required clarification of the district court's direction concerning effectuating his return, recognizing the need to account for executive authority in foreign affairs. The order did not provide a general determination concerning the legality of other third-country transfers.
The case establishes an acknowledged unlawful removal under domestic law. It does not independently establish that every other transfer to El Salvador violated international law or that every official involved incurred individual legal liability.
Its significance lies in the relationship between destination-specific protection and immigration enforcement. The existence of a removal order did not authorize sending Abrego Garcia to a country expressly excluded by the applicable withholding determination.
6.2 Transfers to Liberia and Ghana
The transfer of Elvis Rodriguez Venturas, a Honduran national, to Liberia in August 2026 illustrates a different legal situation. According to the Migration Policy Institute, an immigration court had determined that he faced a risk of torture if returned to Honduras. US authorities instead transferred him, together with 14 other individuals, to Liberia (Empociello, Garcia and Melendez, 2026).
The original protection against return to Honduras did not necessarily prohibit removal to Liberia. A legal determination protecting an individual from torture in one country does not automatically establish the same risk in another country.
The alternative destination nevertheless required consideration of its circumstances. Relevant questions included whether Rodriguez Venturas could lawfully remain in Liberia, whether he faced danger there, and whether Liberian authorities could subsequently remove him to Honduras.
The publicly disclosed US-Liberia arrangement included commitments concerning protection against persecution, torture, and certain onward transfers. The Migration Policy Institute reported that the agreement contemplated implementing procedures whose adoption and operation had not been publicly established.
These circumstances raise questions about how the commitments were implemented. The reported transfer does not, by itself, establish that Liberia subsequently returned Rodriguez Venturas to Honduras or that the United States breached Article 3 of the Convention Against Torture.
Transfers involving Ghana have generated more specific allegations of onward refoulement. Human Rights Watch reported that some people sent from the United States to Ghana were subsequently returned to their countries of origin despite prior protection findings or expressed fears concerning those destinations (Human Rights Watch, 2026).
Its investigation included testimony from transferred individuals, accounts provided by lawyers, and information drawn from immigration records and other documentation. These materials support scrutiny of the transfer arrangements, although an organization's legal assessment must be distinguished from a final judicial determination.
One reported case involved Moussa Diawara's removal through Ghana to Mali. A CBS News 60 Minutes investigation published on October 25, 2026, reported that Diawara, a Malian national who had been protected by a US withholding-of-removal order, was transferred to Ghana and subsequently sent to Mali by Ghanaian authorities, according to his account (CBS News, 2026).
The investigation identified US government baggage tags and medical documentation that referred to Mali as a destination. Diawara argued that those records showed US authorities knew he would ultimately be returned there. DHS disputed that interpretation, attributing the baggage tags to contractors and describing the medical documentation as containing a clerical error. Ghanaian authorities declined to comment.
The documents and conflicting explanations raise questions about what US officials knew or should have anticipated before the transfer. They do not, without further findings, conclusively establish that the United States deliberately arranged an unlawful onward removal.
The factual assessment depends on the original protection order, information available to US authorities before transfer, the receiving state's commitments, and what occurred after the individual entered Ghanaian custody.
Where an initial transfer exposes a protected individual to a sufficiently established and foreseeable risk of prohibited onward removal, the original decision may engage the United States' international obligations. A finding concerning a particular case requires evidence satisfying the relevant legal standard.
6.3 Transfers to El Salvador and CECOT
Transfers to El Salvador have generated separate litigation involving the Alien Enemies Act, immigration enforcement authority, and access to judicial review. Some individuals transferred in March 2025 were detained at the Terrorism Confinement Center, commonly known as CECOT.
The Alien Enemies Act provides a distinct statutory mechanism associated with specified wartime conditions. Its use during the second Trump administration raised questions about the statutory prerequisites for invoking the Act and the procedural protections available to individuals facing removal.
In Trump v. J.G.G., the Supreme Court addressed the procedural mechanism for challenging removals undertaken under the Act. Its April 7, 2025, decision required affected individuals to receive notice sufficient to permit them to seek habeas relief before removal. The Court also addressed the jurisdiction in which such challenges should proceed.
The ruling did not conclusively determine that every invocation of the Alien Enemies Act or every removal carried out under it was substantively lawful.
In A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Supreme Court considered the adequacy of notice and the opportunity to obtain judicial review before removal. Its May 2025 proceedings addressed whether detainees had sufficient time and information to pursue habeas relief before being transferred outside the United States.
These cases demonstrate the importance of procedures operating before removal occurs. A right to challenge detention or deportation may be ineffective if the individual is transferred before having a realistic opportunity to invoke it.
Human Rights Watch and other organizations have reported serious allegations concerning detention conditions and treatment at CECOT. Such accounts must be attributed to the investigators, witnesses, or litigants responsible for them. Their evidentiary status is distinct from findings made by a competent court.
The international-law questions may involve obligations concerning torture, humane treatment, non-refoulement, and responsibility for transfer arrangements. The applicable legal conclusion depends on the circumstances of each individual and the respective conduct of US and Salvadoran authorities.
The Alien Enemies Act litigation also rests on a different statutory foundation from the ordinary post-removal-order procedures challenged in DHS v. D.V.D.. The two disputes should not be treated as interchangeable even where both concern notice, judicial review, and removal to foreign detention arrangements.
7. State Responsibility, Individual Accountability, and Remedies
An international-law violation must be distinguished from a contested policy decision, a domestic procedural error, or an allegation of misconduct by a particular official. The law of state responsibility provides a framework for determining when conduct engages the international responsibility of the United States.
The analysis begins by identifying the applicable international obligation. It then requires examination of whether the relevant conduct is attributable to the state and whether that conduct breaches the obligation in question.
In deportation cases, the breach may concern the decision to transfer an individual despite a legally established risk. Non-refoulement is preventive: depending on the governing treaty, responsibility may arise from unlawful exposure to danger without requiring that torture or persecution subsequently occur.
The availability of domestic remedies presents a separate question. A person may establish that removal violated federal law without obtaining a judicial determination concerning international responsibility. An international obligation may also remain binding even where domestic law restricts the mechanisms available to enforce it.
7.1 State Responsibility and Miller's Institutional Role
The International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts provide the principal general framework for analyzing internationally wrongful conduct. Article 2 identifies two essential elements: conduct attributable to the state and breach of an international obligation.
Article 4 addresses the conduct of state organs. Acts performed by government agencies and officials in their official capacities are ordinarily attributable to the state under the applicable rules.
The Articles were adopted by the International Law Commission in 2001 and annexed to UN General Assembly Resolution 56/83. They are not themselves a treaty. Their authority depends in part on the extent to which particular provisions reflect customary international law and are recognized in judicial practice.
In immigration enforcement, relevant conduct may include decisions by DHS officials, execution of removal orders, or adoption and implementation of administrative procedures. If attributable conduct breaches a binding international obligation, responsibility may arise for the United States.
The legal framework governing state responsibility in international law must be distinguished from individual legal liability. A state may incur international responsibility without establishing that a particular senior adviser or official personally committed an internationally wrongful act.
Stephen Miller's documented role in immigration policy is relevant to understanding how enforcement priorities are developed and coordinated. His appointment as chief of staff may increase his institutional influence, but the position does not independently establish responsibility for particular removal decisions.
Any claim concerning individual civil or criminal liability would require a separate legal basis and evidence connecting the person to conduct satisfying the applicable legal elements. Political criticism, policy advocacy, or participation in executive decision-making cannot substitute for that assessment.
The established record supports examining Miller's influence over immigration policy. It does not justify treating him as personally liable for every challenged deportation or assuming that unlawful conduct was intended.
7.2 Judicial Review and International Oversight
Individuals facing removal may have access to administrative protection proceedings, motions to reopen, judicial review, or temporary relief depending on their status, procedural history, and the statutory framework governing their cases.
The availability of these remedies is not uniform. Congress has imposed jurisdictional restrictions in immigration matters, and different procedural mechanisms govern challenges to removal orders, detention, and executive action.
Where a person alleges a risk of torture, the timing of review can be decisive. A judicial remedy granted after the person has been transferred may be unable to prevent the initial exposure to danger.
The practical difficulty becomes greater when the receiving government has taken custody of the individual. US courts may exercise authority over federal officials while possessing limited direct power over foreign authorities acting within their own jurisdiction.
Noem v. Abrego Garcia illustrates the distinction. The Supreme Court required the US government to facilitate steps concerning an improper removal while recognizing that the extent of judicial direction over executive foreign-affairs functions required careful definition.
International oversight mechanisms operate differently from domestic courts. The Committee Against Torture supervises implementation of the Convention through reporting procedures and other mechanisms established by the treaty.
The United States is subject to the Convention's applicable reporting obligations. However, it has not accepted the Committee's competence to receive individual communications against it under Article 22. Individuals consequently cannot bring complaints against the United States through that procedure.
Even where a state has accepted Article 22, the Committee's decisions are not equivalent to judgments issued by an international court possessing compulsory judicial enforcement authority. They carry significant interpretive and supervisory weight, and the Committee maintains procedures for following up on findings and recommendations.
The Human Rights Committee similarly supervises implementation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The United States is not a party to the First Optional Protocol establishing the Committee's individual-communications procedure.
These limitations do not extinguish the underlying treaty obligations. They affect the institutional procedures through which alleged violations may be examined and the remedies potentially available.
For individuals facing imminent removal, effective domestic safeguards remain particularly significant because protection against refoulement is intended to prevent harm before transfer occurs.
Conclusion
Stephen Miller's appointment as White House chief of staff places a longstanding immigration policy adviser in a position of increased institutional influence at a time when US deportation practices face significant legal scrutiny. His documented involvement in enforcement policy provides relevant context for understanding the administration's priorities, but neither his appointment nor his political role establishes personal legal responsibility for contested removals.
International law does not prohibit deportations solely because they occur on a large scale. The United States retains authority to enforce immigration legislation and remove individuals who lack a legal basis to remain. That authority is constrained by the 1967 Refugee Protocol, the Convention Against Torture, and other applicable international obligations.
The most consequential questions arise where individuals are transferred to countries presenting prohibited risks, particularly when third-country arrangements create the possibility of onward removal to persecution or torture. Existing protection orders, reliable assessments of foreseeable danger, diplomatic assurances, and effective opportunities for review are central to determining legality.
The acknowledged unlawful removal of Kilmar Abrego Garcia demonstrates that immigration enforcement can conflict with binding domestic protection restrictions. Other transfers, including those involving Liberia, Ghana, and El Salvador, require examination of their distinct facts and unresolved legal questions. The pending Supreme Court proceedings in DHS v. D.V.D. may clarify domestic authority and procedural safeguards governing third-country removals, but the Court had not determined the merits as of November 7, 2026.
The legal position depends on the conduct of state authorities, the obligations binding the United States, and the evidence concerning each affected individual. Where an attributable state act breaches an applicable prohibition against refoulement, international responsibility may arise. That conclusion remains separate from any determination of individual responsibility by a government official, which requires its own legal foundation and supporting evidence.
References
Alien Enemies Act (1798) Act of 6 July 1798, ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577, as amended, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 21. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
CBS News (2026) ‘60 Minutes transcript: How some deportees end up in countries U.S. judges ruled off limits’ [online], 25 October. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-some-deportees-end-up-in-countries-us-judges-ruled-off-limits-60-minutes-transcript/ (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Committee Against Torture (2017) General Comment No. 4 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22. CAT/C/GC/4, adopted 6 December 2017, distributed 4 September 2018. Available at: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CAT/CAT-C-GC-4_EN.pdf (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (1984) Adopted 10 December 1984, entered into force 26 June 1987, 1465 UNTS 85. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/viewdetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-9&src=IND (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (1951) Adopted 28 July 1951, entered into force 22 April 1954, 189 UNTS 137. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetailsII.aspx?Temp=mtdsg2&chapter=5&mtdsg_no=V-2&src=TREATY (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Congressional Research Service (2026) Immigration Removals to Third Countries. Report IF13295, updated 23 October 2026. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Available at: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/IF13295.html (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Empociello, E., Garcia, G. and Melendez, J. (2026) ‘How the United States is using third countries to expand immigration control’, Migration Information Source, 15 October [online]. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/journal/feature/us-third-country-deportations (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (1998) Public Law 105-277, Division G, § 2242, 21 October 1998, 112 Stat. 2681-821–2681-822. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/PLAW-105publ277 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Gibson, B. and Kight, S.W. (2025) ‘Scoop: Stephen Miller, Noem tell ICE to supercharge immigrant arrests’, Axios, 28 May [online]. Available at: https://www.axios.com/2025/05/28/immigration-ice-deportations-stephen-miller (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Human Rights Committee (2004) General Comment No. 31 [80]: The Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant. CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.13, adopted 29 March 2004, distributed 26 May 2004. Available at: https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/15/TreatyBodyExternal/TBSearch.aspx?Lang=en&symbolno=CCPR%2FC%2F21%2FRev.1%2FAdd.13 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Human Rights Watch (2026) “To Scare People”: US Expulsions of Third-Country Nationals to Countries in Africa. New York: Human Rights Watch, 8 October. Available at: https://www.hrw.org/report/2026/10/08/to-scare-people/us-expulsions-of-third-country-nationals-to-countries-in-africa (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Immigration and Nationality Act (1952) Act of 27 June 1952, ch. 477, 66 Stat. 163, as amended, particularly §§ 208 and 241, codified at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1158 and 1231. Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1158 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1231 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 171. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&mtdsg_no=IV-4&src=IND (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its fifty-third session, UN Doc. A/56/10, Chapter IV, reproduced in Yearbook of the International Law Commission, 2001, Vol. II, Part Two. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2001/ (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) Adopted 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 UNTS 302. Available at: https://treaties-prod.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=4&clang=_en&mtdsg_no=IV-5&src=TREATY (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees (1967) Concluded 31 January 1967, entered into force 4 October 1967, 606 UNTS 267. Available at: https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?chapter=5&mtdsg_no=V-5&src=TREATY (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Reuters (2026) ‘Trump makes hardliner Stephen Miller his chief of staff after midterm defeat’, 6 November [online]. Available at: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-says-stephen-miller-become-chief-staff-2026-11-06/ (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
Rosenblum, M.R. (2026) U.S. Deportations and “Self-Deportations” in the First 18 Months of the Second Trump Term. Fact Sheet, October. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Available at: https://www.migrationpolicy.org/publication/us-deportations-second-trump (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United Nations General Assembly (2001) Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Resolution 56/83, A/RES/56/83, 12 December 2001. Available at: https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/9_6.shtml (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (2019) Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status and Guidelines on International Protection under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. Reissued edition, HCR/1P/4/ENG/REV.4. Geneva: UNHCR. Available at: https://www.unhcr.org/publications/legal/5ddfcdc47/handbook-procedures-criteria-determining-refugee-status-under-1951-convention.htm (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States (2026) Code of Federal Regulations, Title 8: Aliens and Nationality, Part 208, § 208.18, and Part 1208, §§ 1208.16–1208.18. Available at: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-8/chapter-V/subchapter-B/part-1208 and https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/8/208.18 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2026) D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 26-1212, opinion, 18 September. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-ca1-26-01212 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (1987) Immigration and Naturalization Service v. Cardoza-Fonseca, judgment, 9 March, 480 U.S. 421. Available at: https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USREPORTS-480/USREPORTS-480-421 (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (2025a) A.A.R.P. v. Trump, No. 24A1007, order on application for injunction, 16 May, 605 U.S. ___ (2025). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (2025b) Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 24A1153, order granting application for stay, 23 June, 606 U.S. ___ (2025). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_l5gm.pdf (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (2025c) Noem v. Abrego Garcia, No. 24A949, order on application to vacate injunction, 10 April. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24a949.html (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (2025d) Trump v. J.G.G., No. 24A931, per curiam opinion, 7 April, 604 U.S. ___ (2025). Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a931_2c83.pdf (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
United States Supreme Court (2026) Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., No. 26-426, order granting stay and certiorari, 29 September 2026. Available at: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html (Accessed: 7 November 2026).
White House (2026) ‘President Trump names Stephen Miller as 33rd White House chief of staff’, 6 November [online]. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/releases/2026/11/president-trump-names-stephen-miller-as-33rd-white-house-chief-of-staff/ (Accessed: 7 November 2026).