In the 2004 case Keyse G. Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the government could deport a non-citizen to his home country without obtaining consent from that country's government first. The plaintiff, Keyse Jama, was a Somali refugee who had been convicted of crimes in the United States and ordered deported by immigration authorities under federal law mandating deportation for certain criminal offenses committed by non-citizens. He argued that he couldn't be sent back to Somalia because it lacked an effective national government capable of accepting him or any other deportees at all; however, this argument was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by the Supreme Court as well in a 5-4 decision.

In the dissenting opinion for Keyse G. Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Justice Souter argued that the majority's interpretation of the statute was incorrect because it failed to consider its context and purpose. He contended that Congress intended to give priority to removal agreements with foreign nations over unilateral deportations by U.S authorities, which is why they required government officials to obtain travel documents from a receiving country before proceeding with deportation. This requirement ensures cooperation between countries and respects their sovereignty rights while also protecting immigrants' rights against arbitrary expulsion without any assurance of acceptance in another country. The majority’s decision, according to Justice Souter, undermines these objectives by allowing immigration officers unilaterally decide where an alien should be deported without obtaining consent or guarantee of acceptance from the destination country.