The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a federal court order that would allow migrants to contest their deportations to South Sudan, an appeal filed just hours after a federal judge criticized the government for allegedly “manufacturing” chaos and urged that “reason can get the better of rhetoric.”
At the heart of the legal standoff is a deportation flight carrying individuals from various nations, including some with criminal records, to South Sudan, a country long deemed unstable. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy found that the White House had violated a prior court order by failing to provide those migrants with a fair opportunity to argue that deportation could place them in harm’s way.
“The district court’s invented process offers little but delay. While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the nation does not,” Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in an emergency appeal to the high court. He noted that finding third countries willing to accept deportees is “a delicate diplomatic endeavor,” and said the ruling had severely hindered those efforts.
RELATED STORIES
Judge Murphy, based in Boston and appointed by President Joe Biden, took issue with the administration’s actions, saying he had already shown “remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight” and made several good-faith efforts to work with the government. In a strongly worded order issued Monday night, he suggested that “Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion.”
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
This legal conflict marks yet another chapter in the tense relationship between federal judges and the Trump administration, which has frequently accused the judiciary of obstructing its immigration agenda. Judges, in turn, have not hesitated to use pointed language when weighing in on the legality of the administration’s actions.
The latest dispute reportedly began after reports surfaced that eight men had been removed to South Sudan without the chance to present their fears. During a hearing last week, Judge Murphy confirmed that the individuals had not been given time to argue their case, but he stopped short of ordering their return to the U.S. Instead, he offered a compromise, allow the hearings to proceed in Djibouti, a stopover point for the flight, provided the men remained in U.S. custody.
The administration balked. It filed a subsequent motion, claiming that Murphy’s order required them to detain “dangerous criminals in a sensitive location.” However, Murphy pointed out that this very proposal had come from the government itself.
“It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated,” he wrote, expressing skepticism about the administration’s logistical complaints.
The government maintains that the individuals in question had interacted with the immigration system previously and had opportunities to raise concerns about being deported to non-native countries. Officials also insist that the men’s countries of origin, including Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan refused to repatriate them, leaving the administration with limited options.
READ ALSO: U.S. revokes all South Sudanese visas – Rubio announces
Amid these challenges, the Trump administration has increasingly leaned on third countries to accept deportees when returns to home nations are blocked. Nations such as El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama have agreed to accept certain deportees, though some arrangements have sparked controversy. El Salvador, for instance, holds some deported individuals in its notorious prison system.
Murphy’s order also highlighted the rushed and confusing nature of the recent deportation. He wrote that the eight men were initially informed on May 19 that they would be sent to South Africa, only to be told later that day their destination was actually South Sudan. He emphasized that the U.S. government “has issued stark warnings regarding South Sudan,” and said the men were given fewer than 16 hours before departure, much of which occurred overnight and “limited, if any” access to attorneys or family members.
From Murphy’s perspective, the administration’s conduct left little room for doubt. “From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,” he concluded.
