A federal judge recently expressed grave concern over similar deportations of migrants to South Sudan. In doing so, they risk breaking a federal court order, he cautioned. This caution comes after a plane carrying a dozen individuals landed in South Sudan, raising alarms about potential legal repercussions for the Trump administration.
For South Sudan, the world’s newest nation, the past decade has brought tragedy since its 2011 independence. The country faced a devastating civil war that has left it still today dealing with persistent violence and instability. As a result, the US government’s travel advisory explicitly states: “Do not travel to South Sudan due to crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”
On April 18, Judge Brian Murphy ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Specifically, this decision now permits illegal migrants to sue their deportation to countries that are not considered their home. He insisted that deploying people to South Sudan might breach his previous directive. That Third Country Bar Order, in essence, prohibited the US government from deporting migrants to third countries without first allowing them the opportunity to contest that decision.
During a recent court session, Judge Murphy delivered the statement with the most force. He suggested that he wants to find that someone has willfully violated his preliminary injunction order. He went even further, saying, “From what I have heard this sounds like it could be contempt. The comments serve as the latest signal that the judge is increasingly frustrated by the Trump administration’s apparent failure to comply with his orders.
According to police accounts, authorities deported a group of around ten people in total. This cohort was comprised of fellows from Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, and Mexico. That coalition included a Vietnamese man and a Burmese migrant and would become the majority of that larger contingent. One such terrifying discovery came courtesy of an attorney with the Department of Homeland Security. It turns out that at least one person on the deportation flight had a particularly dangerous criminal record.
Judge Murphy ultimately did not require the aircraft to be flown back to the U.S. Instead, he ordered that the migrants remain in federal detention and be humanely cared for pending additional hearings. His ruling underscores the fractious constitutional showdown between the executive and judiciary branches of government over the White House’s lax immigration enforcement policies.
US District Judge James Boasberg in Washington D.C. found “probable cause” of illegality in the deportations. In response, he chose to criminally contempt Trump officials. This development underscores the rough course of legal challenges the administration is up against. It’s currently negotiating with various countries for them to accept migrant deportations. The US government has already been in discussions with multiple other countries about expanding this concrete positive step. Those countries are Rwanda, Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and Moldova.
I realize that South Sudan is much, much more complicated. At the same time, in a distinct litigation, the government agreed to return a Burmese migrant to Myanmar rather than South Sudan. This ruling deeply muddies the waters in narrative around deportation practices and calls to question the criminalization of asylum seekers.
Her story showcases not just the hardships faced in South Sudan, but the reality of US immigration policy at large. The Trump administration is under enormous legal threat as it works to address these politically charged issues. Now, both judges and advocacy groups are scrutinizing its every move.
Leave a Reply