Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
A federal judge issued a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration on Wednesday, accusing the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) of violating a court order by secretly deporting eight migrants to third countries without giving them adequate time or information to contest their removal.
In a tense courtroom exchange, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy said DHS’s actions directly defied his April injunction, which barred the government from deporting migrants to countries where they have no ties unless they received meaningful due process.
“The department’s actions in this case are unquestionably violative of this court’s order,” Murphy said. “I don’t see how anybody could say that these individuals had a meaningful opportunity to object.”
One man on the flight, known only as “N.M.,” may have been deported to South Sudan — a country engulfed in poverty and political instability. Immigration attorneys say they were given conflicting information about his destination, first being told South Africa, then South Sudan, and later Burma. DHS has refused to confirm where the plane landed, citing classified information.
Immigration attorney Jonathan Ryan, who represents N.M., expressed frustration and fear over his client’s whereabouts. “Let’s be clear: my client has been disappeared,” Ryan said. “The federal judge doesn’t know where he is. I don’t know where he is. It’s possible my client has never even heard of South Sudan.”
Government officials, including ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons, defended the deportations. Lyons claimed the men on the flight had criminal convictions in the U.S. and could not be returned to their home countries. Tricia McLaughlin, Assistant Secretary at DHS, went further, calling them “vicious illegal aliens” and “uniquely barbaric monsters,” accusing Judge Murphy of jeopardizing national security.
But Judge Murphy dismissed those arguments. He emphasized that giving migrants just 17 hours’ notice — often overnight and without legal counsel — made any opportunity for due process “impossible.” He said he would soon revise his injunction to specify a minimum notice period, indicating that 24 hours was insufficient and hinting at a possible requirement of 30 days.
Government attorneys argued the men had a chance to express fears before boarding, but Murphy found that justification lacking. “They believe they complied because no one yelled to a jailer that they were afraid to go to South Sudan. That is plainly insufficient,” he said.
The Department of Justice suggested DHS conduct interviews with the men while they remain in U.S. custody abroad — a proposal that alarmed legal advocates, who say they cannot even confirm the migrants’ locations.
Adding to the diplomatic fallout, South Sudan’s government denied any agreement with the U.S. to accept non-citizen deportees and said it would not take in migrants who are not South Sudanese nationals. “There has been no arrival of such deportees, and any non-South Sudanese would be sent elsewhere,” a police spokesperson said.
The controversy raises broader questions about the Trump administration’s escalating use of so-called “third-country” deportations, where migrants are removed to unfamiliar nations with whom they have no legal or cultural connection. Countries like Libya and South Sudan have pushed back, and immigration advocates warn these practices violate both U.S. and international law.
As the legal battle continues, Judge Murphy has left the door open for criminal contempt proceedings against DHS officials, a rare but serious possibility that underscores the growing tension between the federal judiciary and Trump’s immigration agenda.
“The question of whether this rises to criminal obstruction,” Murphy concluded, “may be resolved on another day.”
