Supreme Court backs Trump bid to deport criminals to South Sudan – Washington Examiner
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration regarding the deportation of eight criminal illegal migrants to South Sudan. In a 7-2 decision, the Court overturned a lower-court ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who had attempted to block the deportations, citing a previous order that had already been stayed by the Supreme Court. The justices emphasized that Murphy had overstepped his authority by enforcing an injunction that the Court had already suspended.
The ruling came after the Department of Justice intervened, labeling Murphy’s actions as a “lawless act of defiance” that disrupted sensitive diplomatic relations and delayed deportations to a nation known for instability and violence. The case stems from a class-action lawsuit challenging the rapid deportation policy initiated by the Trump administration, which contends it is indeed acting lawfully based on diplomatic assurances from South Sudan regarding the treatment of deported individuals.
While most Justices supported the decision,liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and ketanji Brown Jackson dissented,warning that the ruling could expose deported migrants to serious harm. The decision reflects the Supreme Court’s ongoing alignment with the Trump administration on key immigration issues, despite ongoing litigation regarding the rights of migrants.
Supreme Court backs Trump bid to deport criminals to South Sudan
The Supreme Court delivered a win Thursday to the Trump administration, ruling that a lower-court judge had overstepped by trying to block the deportation of eight criminal illegal migrants to South Sudan despite a previous high court order.
In a 7–2 decision, the justices rebuked U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, for defying the high court’s June 23 ruling that allowed the administration to move forward with third-country deportations while litigation continues. The majority said Murphy had no authority after that to enforce an earlier injunction the justices had already stayed.
The Department of Justice asked the high court to intervene again last week, calling Murphy’s ruling “a lawless act of defiance” that had upended “sensitive diplomatic relations” and stalled the removal of illegal migrants to one of the world’s most unstable countries. South Sudan has been subject to a State Department travel warning due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”
“Even if we accepted respondents’ characterization of the May 21 order, such a remedy would serve to ‘coerce’ the Government into ‘compliance’ and would be unenforceable given our stay of the underlying injunction,” the majority wrote.
Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the original June 23 decision to lift the injunction, nevertheless sided with the majority on Thursday.
“I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed,” Kagan wrote in a brief concurring opinion.
But liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, accusing the majority of rubber-stamping deportations that could expose migrants to grave harm.
“Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor wrote, arguing the high court’s decision risks sending “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”
The dispute stems from a class-action lawsuit filed by immigration advocates challenging Trump’s fast-tracked third-country deportation policy. The Department of Homeland Security began expanding rapid removals earlier this year, arguing that the policy is essential for deporting migrants convicted of crimes whose home countries refuse to take them back.
The Trump administration has maintained that it is acting lawfully, citing diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that deported individuals will not face torture. The Supreme Court previously permitted Trump to end temporary humanitarian protections that the Biden administration had extended for hundreds of thousands of migrants, and signaled its willingness to let contentious immigration policies proceed during ongoing legal battles.
Murphy’s original April 18 order had required the government to give migrants a chance to argue they would face torture if deported to a country to which they had no ties. After the high court stayed that injunction, Murphy attempted to continue blocking removals through a separate remedial order. Thursday’s decision shuts that door.
The ruling is the latest indication that the high court’s majority is siding with the administration on key immigration fights, even as litigation over due process protections for migrants remains unresolved.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
