The U.S. Supreme Court has handed the Trump administration a critical legal victory in its ongoing effort to remove illegal immigrants currently held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti, reaffirming the executive branch’s authority to deport individuals to countries not explicitly listed in their original removal orders.

In a 7-2 decision issued Thursday, the Court made clear that its June 23 stay of a lower court injunction applies fully to the case of eight foreign nationals slated for deportation to South Sudan, a war-torn African country currently under a U.S. travel advisory due to violence, kidnapping, and civil unrest.

The immigrants, including individuals from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, were held at the Djibouti base after the Trump administration was blocked by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts from removing them without additional safeguards. Murphy had claimed that deporting them to a “third country”—in this case, South Sudan—would potentially violate international anti-torture laws.

However, the Supreme Court overruled Murphy, asserting the administration’s actions were lawful under its prior stay. “The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable,” the court ruled.

The unsigned opinion confirmed that Judge Murphy’s attempts to interfere with third-country removals had no standing once the Court issued its original stay.

The legal saga began earlier this year when Murphy ruled that the Department of Homeland Security could not deport migrants to countries not specifically named in their removal orders unless it could guarantee they wouldn’t face torture or death—a move widely seen by immigration hawks as an attempt to handcuff the Trump administration’s efforts to deal with dangerous aliens.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer blasted the judge’s intervention, saying Murphy’s “judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process” and are actively “disrupt[ing] sensitive diplomatic, foreign policy, and national-security efforts.”

After the high court issued its first stay in late June, Murphy astonishingly claimed his subsequent May 21 order was still valid. The Trump administration immediately returned to the Supreme Court, urging it to enforce its own authority and stop what it described as Murphy’s “unprecedented defiance.”

The liberal wing of the Court split on the issue. Justice Elena Kagan, though previously opposed to third-country removals, agreed that lower courts cannot defy the Supreme Court. “A majority of this court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed,” Kagan wrote.

But Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, attacking the Trump administration for seeking to deport the eight men from Djibouti to South Sudan “without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death.” Sotomayor criticized the Court for even considering the administration’s appeal, accusing it of bypassing proper judicial channels.

Regardless, the ruling underscores the Supreme Court’s clear position: the federal judiciary cannot block lawful deportation efforts simply because it disagrees with them politically.

Under President Donald J. Trump’s second term, immigration enforcement has returned to the forefront, and this case may set a precedent for how the administration continues to secure America’s borders, even abroad.