Deportations to South Sudan Challenged in Federal Court \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge ordered U.S. officials to retain custody and track migrants allegedly deported to South Sudan, amid concerns the Trump administration violated a court order. Attorneys say migrants from Myanmar and Vietnam were removed without proper legal notice. The court may deem such deportations unlawful and require their return.
Quick Looks
- Judge orders U.S. to retain control of deported migrants
- Migrants allegedly sent from U.S. to South Sudan, Africa
- Attorneys say Trump administration defied court order
- Migrants must be allowed to challenge deportation destinations
- Up to 12 migrants possibly flown to Africa
- One Myanmar migrant informed only in English
- Attorneys report Vietnamese migrant among those deported
- Biden-appointed Judge Brian E. Murphy issues ruling
- DHS must explain removals, timing, and migrant awareness
- Deportations to dangerous third countries under scrutiny
- Trump previously sent Venezuelans to El Salvador prison
- South Sudan deemed unsafe by U.S. and UN
- TPS for South Sudanese extended due to instability
- Court to revisit legality of third-country deportation practice
Deep Look
A federal judge has intervened in what could be a major immigration showdown, ordering the U.S. government to retain custody and tracking of migrants allegedly deported to South Sudan, as questions mount over whether the Trump administration violated a standing court order restricting such removals.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, based in Massachusetts, issued the late-night emergency ruling Tuesday following urgent filings from immigration attorneys. The court order comes amid reports that the U.S. has deported migrants from Myanmar, Vietnam, and possibly other countries to South Sudan, a nation currently beset by conflict, human rights abuses, and a renewed risk of civil war.
Legal Challenge to Secret Deportations
The central issue before the court is whether the U.S. government has sidestepped a prior order requiring that migrants must be given a meaningful chance to challenge deportation to countries other than their own, especially if such removal poses a risk to their safety.
Judge Murphy’s ruling compels immigration officials to maintain control over any affected individuals to ensure they can be returned to the U.S. if the court deems their deportations unlawful.
He added that while officials can determine how to do so, he “expects” that all individuals will be treated “humanely.”
Attorneys Sound Alarm Over Secretive Deportations
According to attorneys with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, at least 12 migrants from multiple countries may have already been removed to Africa, including one man from Myanmar and a group including a Vietnamese national.
One deportee was notified of his removal in English only, despite not speaking the language proficiently. His attorneys only learned of the planned flight hours before it occurred.
“People are being removed without notice, without translation, and without legal recourse,” attorneys wrote in their request for emergency relief. They argue this violates due process and the court’s previous rulings.
Court Orders DHS to Reveal Details
Judge Murphy directed the Department of Homeland Security to appear in court Wednesday and present detailed information about:
- The identities and nationalities of those removed
- How and when migrants were notified of their removal
- What opportunity, if any, they had to express fear of removal
- Where those already removed are currently located
The judge stressed that this information is necessary to assess the legality and morality of the government’s actions.
Historical and Legal Precedent in Question
This case highlights the Trump administration’s controversial use of third-country deportations, especially to nations with which migrants have no connection. Legal scholars have pointed to the administration’s prior use of an 18th-century wartime statute—the Alien Enemies Act of 1798—to deport Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador, despite growing international outcry.
South Sudan, where several migrants were allegedly sent, is widely considered unsafe. The U.S. State Department’s 2024 human rights report lists “arbitrary killings, torture, and gender-based violence” as persistent dangers.
Nicholas Haysom, head of the U.N. peacekeeping mission in South Sudan, recently warned that conflict between rival political factions could escalate into full-scale civil war, reminiscent of the brutal conflicts in 2013 and 2016 that claimed over 400,000 lives.
Humanitarian Protections Ignored?
Ironically, the U.S. government itself has recognized the dire conditions in South Sudan. Since 2011, the Department of Homeland Security has granted Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to South Sudanese nationals already in the U.S., shielding them from deportation due to unsafe conditions. DHS Secretary Kristi Noem recently extended TPS protections until November 2025.
Critics argue that deporting non-South Sudanese migrants there, while protecting actual South Sudanese from removal, is inconsistent and hypocritical.
“This isn’t just about legal violations—it’s about basic decency,” said a spokesperson for the Immigrant Defense Project. “Sending people into war zones they’ve never been to is indefensible.”
Trump’s Immigration Approach Under Fire
The deportation strategy is part of President Donald Trump’s broader crackdown on immigration, which includes striking deals with countries like Panama to house deportees, bypassing nations unwilling to accept them.
These arrangements, often made in secret, reflect a shift toward outsourcing immigration enforcement to foreign governments—often with poor human rights records. Critics say these tactics violate international asylum norms, as well as the U.S. Constitution’s due process guarantees.
Judge Murphy had previously ruled that deporting people to Libya without sufficient notice would “clearly” violate legal protections. That decision is now being used to challenge the South Sudan deportations.
What Happens Next
The judge’s demand for transparency and custody retention indicates he may ultimately block these deportations altogether. If he rules that the removals violated court orders or constitutional rights, the government could be ordered to return the deportees.
The outcome could set a legal precedent for how far the executive branch can go in reassigning deportation destinations without proper judicial oversight or legal process.
Deportations to South
You must Register or Login to post a comment.