The Supreme Court on Tuesday let President Donald Trump's administration continue swiftly deporting people to countries other than their own for now, while the justices consider whether the policy is legal.

The apparent 6-3 order temporarily lifts lower court requirements for migrants to get a chance to object before being sent to countries to which they have no ties.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in December.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have kept the lower court order in place.

The Trump administration said last week the lower court order forced the cancellation of a deportation flight carrying about 70 people bound for three countries.

The conservative majority has sided with the administration before on the core Trump administration policy, allowing deportation flights to temporarily continue last year.

The court said it will consider several questions: whether the policy is lawful, whether lower courts had the authority to consider the case and issue a sweeping block, as well as other questions the government deems appropriate.

The order "has now allowed the administration to resume sending people to third countries where they may face persecution, torture, imprisonment, or other grave danger," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and one of the lawyers representing immigrants in the case.

"But today's order does not decide that the government's policy is lawful," she said in a statement. "The Court will hear that question on an expedited schedule."

Under a series of often-secret agreements, the Trump administration has deported some 25,000 people to more than two dozen countries, from Liberia to Guyana. The vast majority have been sent to Mexico.

Trump's Republican administration has said that it sends people with final deportation orders to third countries when they can't be returned to their homelands or their native countries won't accept them, including those who have criminal convictions. Those governments provide assurances that people won't be persecuted or tortured, federal attorneys said.

Attorney General Todd Blanche called the policy "an entirely lawful and critical tool for immigration enforcement" in a social media post.

Some migrants, though, have found themselves imprisoned in countries they'd never heard of before their arrivals. Others also face serious safety risks and are left with little choice except to return to the home countries they were fleeing. Many have no criminal convictions and have been found to be at risk of torture or persecution, attorneys for the immigrants said.

The case comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by the Trump administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally.

A federal lawsuit was filed Monday against CVB Financial Corp. alleging that the Ontario-based lender misled investors in the months leading up to the company's disclosure that it was under a Securities and Exchange Commission investigation.
Kahn Swick & Foti, a class-actions law firm with offices in Louisiana and New York, and Braun Law Group in Los Angeles, brought the suit on behalf of a shareholder, Barry R. Lloyd.

The lawsuit offers little information on the basis for the allegations, other than to say that CVB - which owns Citizens Business Bank - is the subject of an investigation into "possible accounting violations."

Lawyers filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Riverside.

"The SEC has not charged CVB financial with anything," CVB Chief Executive Christopher Myers said Tuesday.

Lewis Kahn, founding partner of Kahn Swick & Foti and a lawyer on the case, did not respond to calls for comment.

More lawsuits against CVB are likely to crop up, said Dana Warren, director of the Business Law Practicum at Loyola Law School, whether or not the SEC discloses more information about the investigation.

Apollo Group Inc and several of its top executives have been slapped with a class action lawsuit for allegedly making misleading statements about the for-profit education company's operations.

The complaint filed in a federal court in Arizona alleges that Apollo and some of its executives made "materially false and misleading statements" between December 7, 2009, and August 3, 2010, about its business.

The complaint also alleges that these statements artificially inflated the trading price of Apollo common stock during that time, the company said in a regulatory filing.

Complainants are seeking compensatory damages, Apollo said, adding that it intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

The executives named in the lawsuit include Apollo's executive chairman, co-chief executive officers, chief financial officer and others.

Apollo, parent of the University of Phoenix, and the rest of the for-profit industry has come under intense regulatory scrutiny over enrollment practices and use of federal aid.

Last year, Apollo, considered bellwether of the industry, was investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for its revenue recognition practices.

Apollo's shares, which have fallen 20 percent in the last 3 months, fell about 3 percent in pre-market trade to $42.

The Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., www.suemyadvisor.com or www.menzerhill.com, announced today an investigation into the 1861 Capital Management municipal arbitrage funds sold by UBS (NYSE:UBS) and other broker dealers. The funds we are currently investigating include: 1861 Capital Municipal Enterprise Domestic Fund, LP, 1861 Capital Municipal Enterprise Offshore Fund, Ltd., 1861 Capital Discovery Domestic Fund, LP, and 1861 Capital Discovery Offshore Fund, Ltd. In marketing 1861 to investors, UBS targeted high net worth individual investors who were generally risk averse, took a conservative approach to investing and were interested in the safety and security offered by tax free municipal bonds. The firms that used municipal arbitrage attempted to take advantage of differences between municipal bonds and other types of debt, including Treasury securities and corporate bonds. This was the strategy of the 1861 Municipal Arbitrage Fund. Unfortunately, many of these types of strategies are highly leveraged. The leverage, often downplayed in marketing material, caused massive losses with the collapse of the market in 2008 and 2009. Based on our analysis, there was lack of disclosure and/or misrepresentations concerning the risks of these products, and investors who were looking to preserve their capital sustained substantial losses.

Investors who purchased 1861 Capital Management municipal arbitrage funds are urged to explore their legal rights and options. The attorneys at the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A. are dedicated to pursuing claims on behalf of investors who have suffered investment losses.

For a free case evaluation or to discuss any other investment losses, please contact the Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A., at 888-923-9223, or visit us on the web at www.suemyadvisor.com or www.menzerhill.com.

CONTACT:  Securities Law Firm of Menzer & Hill, P.A.          888-923-9223