Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court on Thursday gave the green light for the Trump administration to proceed with the deportation of eight convicted noncitizens to South Sudan, overriding a lower court order that had blocked the move over concerns the men could face torture or death.
In an unsigned opinion, the high court clarified its June 23 ruling — which had made it easier for the government to send migrants to “third countries” with which they have no ties — stating that it also applied to these eight individuals. As a result, the court declared that U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy’s injunction was “unenforceable.”
The decision allows the men, currently detained in Djibouti, to be turned over to South Sudanese authorities — despite a pending legal fight over whether they had been granted a “meaningful opportunity” to contest the deportation.
Liberal Justices Warn of Grave Danger
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, sharply criticizing the court for rushing through a life-or-death matter and siding with the Trump administration without fully addressing human rights concerns.
“What the government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,” Sotomayor wrote in her dissent.
She warned that the ruling rewards the administration for violating judicial orders and accused the court of serving as a political backstop for Trump’s agenda:
“Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented in the earlier ruling, joined the majority this time, writing separately to say that Murphy’s order could not be enforced while under stay by the Supreme Court. However, she did not comment on the deportation’s potential consequences.
Backlash and Legal Concerns
The eight men, originally from Myanmar, Vietnam, and other nations, were convicted of serious offenses in the U.S. but were still entitled to file claims under the United Nations Convention Against Torture, according to immigration advocates. They were removed from U.S. custody and flown to Djibouti before Judge Murphy’s earlier ruling could be enforced.
In his original order, Murphy said the government had acted in “defiance” of court instructions, and emphasized the need for a fair process to assess whether deporting the men to South Sudan would violate international human rights law.
Despite the Trump administration’s assertion that it had received “assurances” from South Sudan that the men would not be tortured, their attorneys maintain that the risk is still real and immediate.
“This decision rewards the government for violating a court order and endangers the lives of eight men,” said Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the group. “The Supreme Court has placed expedience over due process and basic human dignity.”
White House and DHS Applaud Ruling
The administration and its allies hailed the ruling as a significant legal and political win.
“These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,” said DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin, calling the ruling “a win for the rule of law, safety, and security of the American people.”
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority — bolstered by Trump’s three appointments — has repeatedly sided with the administration in major immigration-related disputes, including the rollback of asylum protections, expanded deportation powers, and the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy.
Ongoing Controversy Over Deportation to Third Countries
This case marks a continuation of Trump’s broader push to reshape U.S. asylum law, allowing deportations to third countries that lack formal ties or safety guarantees. The eight men’s removal represents the first known attempt to deport individuals to South Sudan under the revised legal framework.
Murphy’s broader ruling — which imposed a nationwide block on third-country deportations without due process — was partially stayed by the Supreme Court in June. Thursday’s order narrowed the application of that stay, but left future litigation uncertain.
The ruling may also set a precedent for how aggressively the administration can act while legal battles remain unresolved — and highlights how deeply immigration, national security, and judicial independence are intertwined in the Trump-era legal landscape.
With deportations now expected within days, legal advocates say they are exploring emergency appeals to international courts and pressing the Biden-appointed judge’s original due process concerns with allies in Congress.
