This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . The next check for changes will be

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/23/supreme-court-trump-deportations

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
US supreme court clears way for Trump to deport migrants to countries not their own US supreme court clears way for Trump to deport migrants to countries not their own
(about 3 hours later)
Justices lift judicial order, handing victory to US president in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportationsJustices lift judicial order, handing victory to US president in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations
The US supreme court cleared the way on Monday for Donald Trump’s administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The US supreme court on Monday paved the way for the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to countries they are not from, including to conflict-ridden places such as South Sudan.
The justices lifted a judicial order that required the government to give migrants set for deportation to so-called “third countries” a “meaningful opportunity” to tell officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. In a brief, unsigned order, the court’s conservative supermajority paused the ruling by a Boston-based federal judge who said immigrants deserved a “meaningful opportunity” to bring claims that they would face the risk of torture, persecution or even death if removed to certain countries that have agreed to take people deported from the US.
Boston-based US district judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on 18 April. As a result of Monday’s ruling, the administration will now be allowed to swiftly deport immigrants to so-called “third countries”, including a group of men held at a US military base in Djibouti who the administration tried to send to South Sudan.
The court’s three liberal justices – Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented from the decision. The court offered no explanation for its decision and ordered the judge’s ruling paused while the appeals process plays out. The three liberal justices issued a scathing dissent.
After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face. The Department of Homeland Security hailed the decision as a “victory for the safety and security of the American people”.
Murphy on 21 May found that the administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U state department has warned against any travel “due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict”. “DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them,” spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “Fire up the deportation planes.”
The judge’s intervention prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although US officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese, while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. In response to Monday’s ruling, White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said: “The supreme court’s stay of a leftwing district judge’s injunction reaffirms the president’s authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again.”
Reuters also reported by that officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous US condemnation of Libya’s harsh treatment of detainees. Murphy clarified that any removals without offering a chance to object would violate his order. In the dissenting opinion, justice Sonia Sotomayor accused the court of “rewarding lawlessness” by allowing the government to violate the due process rights of the immigrants facing removal. She also charged that the conservative majority appeared more concerned by the “remote possibility” that the federal judge exceeded his authority than by “the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales”.
As part of its pattern of assailing various judges who have taken actions to impede Trump policies challenged as unlawful, the White House in a statement called Murphy “a far-left activist judge”. “In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution,” she wrote. “In this case, the government took the opposite approach.”
The administration, in its 27 May emergency filing to the supreme court, said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed “heinous crimes” in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. Boston-based US district judge Brian Murphy has faced sharp criticism from Trump and his allies over the decision – part of a pattern of targeting judges who impede the administration’s agenda. In a statement, the White House called him a “a far-left activist judge”.
The dispute is the latest of many cases involving legal challenges to various Trump policies including immigration to have already reached the nation’s highest judicial body since he returned to office in January. The case was brought by immigrant rights groups who filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their rapid removal to third-party countries – places where they did not hold citizenship and had no connection.
The supreme court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, in April faulted the administration’s treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under US constitution’s due process protections. In May, Murphy found that the Department of Homeland Security had “unquestionably” violated an earlier court order when it attempted to send eight men, all convicted of violent crimes in the US, to South Sudan, a country that the US state department has deemed dangerous for travelers “due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict”.
Murphy ruled that the Trump administration could not let a group of migrants being transported to countries that were not their own leave the custody of US immigration authorities.
As a result, the plane landed instead in the east African nation of Djibouti, where they have been held at a US military base ever since. The detainees came from countries around the world – Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar. Only one was from South Sudan. Immigration officials have said that they were unable to return the men to their home countries quickly.
Reuters also reported by that US officials had considered sending migrants to Libya – another politically unstable country previously condemned by Washington for its harsh treatment of detainees. Removing individuals without an opportunity to object would violate his order, Murphy clarified.
In an emergency filing to the supreme court, the administration said the South Sudan-bound migrants had committed “heinous crimes”, including murder, arson and armed robbery.
Sign up to This Week in Trumpland
A deep dive into the policies, controversies and oddities surrounding the Trump administration
after newsletter promotion
The case is one of several legal challenges to Trump-era immigration policies to reach the supreme court since Trump returned to office in January vowing to carry out the largest deportation campaign in US history.
In May, the supreme court let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the US temporarily. The justices, however, in April faulted the administration’s treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under US constitution’s due process protections.
Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.
In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there “without the need for further procedures.” In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there “without the need for further procedures”.
Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance.Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, US authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance.
Murphy found that the administration’s policy of “executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims” likely violates due process requirements under the constitution.Murphy found that the administration’s policy of “executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims” likely violates due process requirements under the constitution.
Murphy said that the supreme court, Congress, “common sense” and “basic decency” all require migrants to be given adequate due process. The Boston-based 1st US circuit court of appeals on 16 May declined to put Murphy’s decision on hold.Murphy said that the supreme court, Congress, “common sense” and “basic decency” all require migrants to be given adequate due process. The Boston-based 1st US circuit court of appeals on 16 May declined to put Murphy’s decision on hold.
In his order concerning the flight to South Sudan, Murphy also clarified that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety.In his order concerning the flight to South Sudan, Murphy also clarified that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety.
The administration told the supreme court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.The administration told the supreme court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.