The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Tuesday to stop a ruling that lets migrants challenge their deportations to South Sudan. This appeal came just hours after a judge said the administration was “manufacturing” chaos and expressed hope that “reason can get the better of rhetoric.”
Judge Brian Murphy said the White House broke a court order by sending a deportation flight to the unstable African country with people from other nations who had been convicted of crimes in the U.S. He said those individuals must have a real chance to explain why returning there could put them at risk.
The federal government argued that Murphy’s actions are delaying its efforts to deport migrants who cannot return to their home countries. Finding countries that agree to accept them is a “delicate diplomatic endeavor,” and the court’s demands have made things more difficult, Solicitor General D. John Sauer said in an emergency request for the Supreme Court to block Murphy’s order right away.
Murphy responded by saying he had already given the Trump administration “remarkable flexibility with minimal oversight” and pointed out how often he had tried to work with the government, based on a ruling he issued Monday night.
This is the latest situation where federal judges reviewing the Trump administration’s broad policies have used strong and sometimes harsh language to express their concerns. The Trump administration, in turn, has said that judges are interfering with the choices of voters by stopping or delaying its plans.
At a recent hearing focused on reports that eight immigrants were sent to South Sudan, Murphy said those men did not have the chance to argue that deportation might put them in danger.
But instead of ordering the government to bring the men back to the U.S. for hearings—as the plaintiffs asked—he said the government could hold the hearings in Djibouti, where the plane had stopped on its way to South Sudan, as long as the men stayed in U.S. custody. A few days later, the Trump administration filed another request, claiming Murphy was forcing them to keep “dangerous criminals in a sensitive location.”
Murphy responded that it was actually the government’s “own suggestion” to let the hearings happen while the men were still outside the U.S.
“It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated,” wrote Murphy, a Boston-based judge appointed by President Joe Biden.
Migrants on the Navy shipThe government argued that the men had previous interactions with immigration officials, which gave them earlier chances to explain why they feared deportation to a country that wasn’t their homeland. They also said that the men’s countries of origin—Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan—would not agree to take them back.
“The district court’s invented process offers little but delay. While certain aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, the nation does not,” Sauer wrote. Officials have said keeping the men in Djibouti has hurt the U.S.’s relationship with that country.
The Trump administration has often pointed to the men’s criminal records in the U.S. and described them as threats to national security.
The Trump administration has depended more on third countries to take immigrants who cannot be sent home. Some countries refuse to accept their own deported citizens, others accept only some, and in some cases, it’s considered too dangerous to return people to their country of origin due to fears of torture or harm.
In the past, this meant immigration officials had to release such individuals into the U.S. even though they wanted to deport them.
But the Trump administration has asked other countries to take them. In the Western Hemisphere, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama have agreed to accept some of these people, with El Salvador being especially controversial for putting deported individuals in a well-known prison.
The Trump administration has said it is looking into more countries that might agree to accept deportees.
Murphy said in his order that on May 19, the eight men were first told they were going to South Africa, but later that day were informed they were actually being sent to South Sudan. He pointed out that the U.S. government has given serious warnings about the danger in South Sudan.
He said the men were told fewer than 16 hours before the flight, most of that time during the night, and had “limited, if any” chance to contact family or a lawyer. “From the course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion,” the judge wrote.