The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow immediate deportation of a group of migrants held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan. The administration accused U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of defying the Supreme Court’s recent order by blocking the deportation of these migrants.
This move came shortly after the Supreme Court, in a closely divided decision, permitted the administration to resume deportations to third countries, including South Sudan, with minimal notice. However, Judge Murphy ruled that the Supreme Court’s order did not apply to the specific group detained in Djibouti, requiring further assessments regarding their claims of potential torture if removed.
Legal Tensions and Accusations of Defiance
Describing the district court ruling as “untenable” and a “lawless act of defiance,” the Department of Justice urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its earlier stay also covers the May 21 order protecting the Djibouti detainees. The administration went further, suggesting the case be reassigned to a different district judge.
The DOJ emphasized the diplomatic sensitivities and legal authority of the executive branch in conducting removals under the law (10 USC 12305). They argued that the lower court ruling disrupts lawful deportation efforts and risks harming international relations.
Migrants’ Safety and Legal Advocates’ Response
Advocacy groups, including the National Immigrant Litigation Alliance, defended Judge Murphy’s decision as a reasonable interpretation of the Supreme Court’s order. They highlighted the urgent safety concerns for the migrants — from countries such as Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos — who face significant risks if forcibly sent to South Sudan, a nation grappling with food insecurity, political instability, and violence.
These groups criticized delays by the government in allowing detainees access to legal counsel and stressed the humanitarian dimension of the case.
The Supreme Court’s Monday order allowing broad deportations drew a sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who accused the majority of rewarding lawlessness in immigration enforcement. The split highlights ongoing tensions over executive authority and judicial oversight in immigration cases.
Author’s Opinion
While national security and diplomatic considerations are critical, it is equally important that deportation policies adhere to humane standards and judicial oversight. The administration’s aggressive push to deport vulnerable migrants without thorough assessment risks undermining legal protections and endangering lives. A fair and transparent legal process is essential to maintain the integrity of the justice system and uphold international human rights obligations.
