Judge Halts Deportation to South Sudan Temporarily \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge briefly paused the deportation of eight immigrants to war-torn South Sudan. The case was reassigned to a Boston judge who previously blocked the removals. Immigration lawyers cited urgent new legal claims needing a hearing.
Quick Looks
- Judge Randolph Moss issued a temporary stay on July 4.
- The case was redirected to Judge Brian Murphy in Boston.
- Immigrants are not South Sudanese, but face deportation there.
- Lawyers filed emergency motions after Supreme Court ruling.
- The Supreme Court cleared deportation late Thursday night.
- Moss extended the pause until Friday at 4:30 p.m. ET.
- Deportations were planned from Djibouti to South Sudan.
- South Sudan remains in civil war; travel warnings remain.
Deep Look
In a striking legal turn on the Fourth of July, a federal judge in Washington temporarily blocked the deportation of eight immigrants who were being transferred to war-torn South Sudan—despite a greenlight from the U.S. Supreme Court just a day earlier. The development marks the latest chapter in a high-stakes immigration case that has drawn scrutiny from legal experts, immigrant rights advocates, and international observers concerned about U.S. deportation practices to unstable countries.
On Friday afternoon, District Judge Randolph Moss issued a temporary order halting the Biden administration’s effort to move the group from a U.S. Naval base in Djibouti to South Sudan. Moss held a rare holiday hearing to address an emergency legal filing made late Thursday night by attorneys representing the immigrants. These lawyers raised new constitutional and procedural concerns in light of the Supreme Court’s latest decision, arguing the deportations should be paused for further judicial review.
Although Moss had not previously been involved in the case, he reviewed the situation and concluded that it should be transferred to Judge Brian Murphy in Boston—the judge who originally issued a stay blocking the deportations last month. Judge Moss extended the deportation halt until 4:30 p.m. ET on Friday, giving Murphy time to potentially step in again. However, it remained unclear whether Murphy would act on the federal holiday.
What makes this case extraordinary is not only the rare holiday court action, but the complex legal and humanitarian dynamics at play. The eight individuals in question are not citizens of South Sudan. Instead, they are immigrants from Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and other nations. They were apprehended in the United States but could not be deported to their home countries due to legal or logistical reasons. In response, the federal government attempted to send them to South Sudan—a country still mired in civil war and chronic instability.
The U.S. State Department currently warns Americans against all travel to South Sudan, noting the risk of violent conflict, crime, kidnapping, and inadequate infrastructure. The advisory starkly states that travelers should prepare for “making funeral arrangements in advance.” Despite such warnings, the federal government arranged for these non-South Sudanese immigrants to be flown to Djibouti as a stopover point for their eventual transfer.
However, a legal obstacle emerged in June when Judge Murphy ruled that the federal government could not deport individuals to countries they are not citizens of without affording them a hearing. His ruling was seen as a significant check on broad federal deportation powers, especially regarding third-country removals—a practice that has drawn criticism from legal and human rights groups.
The Biden administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, which vacated Murphy’s order in late June. On Thursday night, the Court further clarified that the removal of the eight individuals to South Sudan was authorized. Hours later, attorneys for the immigrants filed an emergency petition to stop the deportations, citing new legal grounds that they argued had not been addressed by the justices.
In response, Judge Moss quickly convened a hearing, underscoring the urgency of the situation. His decision to temporarily halt the removals and transfer the case reflects the complex balance between judicial process and executive power in immigration enforcement. He also emphasized that the new legal arguments raised by the plaintiffs warranted proper judicial review—suggesting that procedural justice had not yet been fully served.
This case sheds light on the broader U.S. policy of deporting individuals to third countries, even in situations where they have no citizenship ties or protections. The policy has come under increasing fire from human rights advocates who argue that such practices risk violating international norms, especially when the destination country is embroiled in violent conflict or lacks functional governance.
South Sudan, in particular, presents one of the most dangerous possible deportation destinations. Since its independence in 2011, the country has suffered from repeated outbreaks of civil war, ethnic violence, and mass displacement. According to humanitarian agencies, millions remain internally displaced, and the rule of law is weak. Sending non-citizens there—particularly without a legal hearing—raises profound ethical and legal questions.
Lawyers for the immigrants have emphasized that the group was never given an opportunity to contest their deportation to South Sudan in court, nor were they informed of the potential dangers. In their emergency filing, they argued that the Supreme Court ruling did not account for new factual developments or legal claims. These include concerns about the safety and rights of immigrants sent to countries they have no relationship with, and the U.S. government’s obligations under both domestic and international law.
Judge Moss echoed these concerns, noting the legal novelty and humanitarian implications of the case. By transferring the matter back to Judge Murphy, who has already engaged deeply with its facts and legal framework, Moss ensured that the court best prepared to address the ongoing issues would be in control.
Meanwhile, the administration’s intention to carry out the deportations remained uncertain. Though the stay was only in place until Friday evening, the timing of the court’s actions—combined with the legal uncertainties introduced—may delay or prevent further deportation proceedings.
This saga also reflects broader tensions within U.S. immigration policy. Although the Biden administration has publicly expressed support for more humane immigration enforcement, it has often pursued aggressive deportation tactics, including removals to volatile regions. The juxtaposition of such policies with the country’s stated human rights values is increasingly under scrutiny, especially as the administration navigates legal challenges from immigrant advocates and civil liberties organizations.
The public response has also been telling. Legal analysts, including journalist Chris Geidner who first reported the emergency stay, have highlighted the unusual nature of the case and the potential for it to reshape discussions around non-citizen deportation and due process. Human rights groups have voiced alarm over the precedent such removals could set—especially if immigrants can be forcibly removed to any country, regardless of citizenship or ties.
Looking ahead, the next steps in the case will hinge on Judge Murphy’s response and whether the Biden administration continues to press for immediate deportation. For now, the temporary stay offers the immigrants a fleeting window of protection, but their future remains uncertain. At stake is more than just the fate of eight individuals—it is a test of how far U.S. immigration authorities can go in pursuing deportations in defiance of humanitarian and legal norms.
Judge Halts Deportation Judge Halts Deportation
You must Register or Login to post a comment.