Trump pushes courts to allow deportations to South Sudan: what you need to know

A federal judge has already ruled that the government violated a court order by putting eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan. This week, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to allow it to continue with the accelerated deportation of migrants to third countries. The request comes after a federal judge in Boston ruled that the government violated a court order by putting eight migrants on a flight to South Sudan without giving them the opportunity to legally challenge their expulsion.

The flight, which departed last week, landed in Djibouti, in the Horn of Africa, where the migrants have been detained at a US military base. According to court documents, the government notified them only 24 hours in advance that they would be deported and did not allow them access to lawyers or a process to allege credible fear of torture or persecution, as required by law.

Who are the migrants?

The eight men deported have criminal records for violent crimes. One is a citizen of South Sudan, another is from Myanmar—and the government says he will be transferred there—but the remaining six have no ties to South Sudan, the country originally designated as their destination. Most come from countries that have refused to accept their repatriation, which is why the US administration tried to send them to a “safe third country.”

The six were informed that they would be sent to a country currently facing armed conflict, mass displacement, and political violence. According to their testimony, presented in court, they fear for their safety if they are sent there.

“Manufactured chaos” by the government

Judge Brian E. Murphy ruled that the Trump administration had violated a court order issued in April. That order required the government to provide migrants with a fair hearing before sending them to countries where they could face torture. Murphy noted that officials “deliberately misinterpreted” the court order and accused them of “manufacturing the very chaos they now denounce.”

In his most recent ruling, the judge did not order the migrants to be returned to the United States, as their lawyers had requested. Instead, he accepted a proposal from the government itself that immigration proceedings be conducted from the base in Djibouti. However, days later, the Justice Department filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that conducting these proceedings outside the country is too complex. Murphy responded sarcastically: “It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder than they anticipated.”

In addition, the judge emphasized that having a criminal record does not eliminate the constitutional right to due process.

The case reaches the Supreme Court

On Tuesday, Attorney General D. John Sauer filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to overturn Judge Murphy’s order. In his brief, he argued that the district court’s decisions impede the exercise of presidential powers under Article II, including the management of foreign relations, control of the military, and enforcement of immigration law.

Sauer described the migrants as “some of the worst illegal aliens” and said the process imposed by the judge allows these individuals to remain in the country for years, “victimizing law-abiding American citizens.”

Beyond this case

This is not an isolated incident. In previous cases, other federal judges have accused the Trump administration of misrepresenting court orders. In Washington, Judge James Boasberg launched a similar investigation into the deportation of another migrant under similar circumstances. In Boston, Murphy also ordered the government to facilitate the return of a gay Guatemalan migrant sent to Mexico, despite his reports of being kidnapped and raped there.

For now, the future of migrants in Djibouti remains uncertain. The Supreme Court will have the final say on whether the government can continue with expedited deportations to third countries without offering the due process guaranteed by the Constitution.