The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were placed on a flight to South Sudan in May—a conflict-ridden nation where they have no familial or cultural ties.

In a decision driven by the court’s conservative majority, justices ruled that immigration authorities have broad power to swiftly deport individuals to third countries. The ruling halts a lower court order that had temporarily allowed migrants to challenge their removal to countries outside their homeland where they might face danger.

The court’s action now permits the delayed deportation flight to South Sudan to proceed. It overturns findings by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts, who previously stated that his narrower order protecting the South Sudan-bound migrants remained in effect despite the Supreme Court lifting his broader injunction.

In a brief unsigned opinion, the majority asserted that its June 23 decision not only nullified Murphy’s broader ruling but also rendered his directive concerning the South Sudan deportations “unenforceable.” As is typical for rulings on the high court’s emergency docket, the justices did not elaborate on the full legal reasoning behind the decision.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, criticizing the ruling for granting the government preferential treatment. “Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor wrote.

Attorneys for the eight men aboard the South Sudan flight argued that deporting them would expose them to grave risks. “We know they’ll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,” said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance.

The migrants’ legal team warned they could face “imprisonment, torture and even death” in South Sudan, where renewed political tensions have raised fears of another civil war.

The Trump administration, which has launched an expansive immigration crackdown and vowed to deport millions living illegally in the U.S., praised the Supreme Court’s intervention. It had previously described Murphy’s ruling as “a lawless act of defiance.”

The White House and the Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Though the migrants had been convicted of serious crimes in the United States, their legal team contended they were entitled to present claims that removal to a third country, especially one as unstable as South Sudan, posed a risk of torture. Judge Murphy, a Biden appointee, had agreed in part—ruling not against deportation to third countries outright, but affirming that migrants must have a genuine opportunity to argue they would be endangered if transferred to such nations.

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities have increasingly relied on agreements with third countries to house deportees when repatriation to their home nations is not feasible.

This article includes reporting by The Associated Press.