Last month, Judge Murphy issued a significant ruling that barred the Trump administration from deporting individuals to so-called “third-party countries” without first providing them a meaningful opportunity to challenge their deportation. This ruling was based on concerns that these individuals might face severe risks, including the threat of being killed or tortured in those nations. However, despite this ruling, the administration proceeded to deport individuals to South Sudan—a country recognized as one of the most dangerous and war-torn regions on the planet.
On Tuesday morning, the administration executed these deportations with alarming haste, providing the individuals involved with merely 12 hours notice and no opportunity to consult with their legal representatives. South Sudan, a landlocked nation in East Africa, is currently grappling with severe food shortages and rampant ethnic violence. The U.S. State Department strongly advises American citizens to avoid traveling to this perilous destination.
During a court hearing on Wednesday, Judge Murphy expressed his disapproval of the administration's actions. He stated that the expedited deportations fell significantly short of the requirements outlined in his April ruling. “I believe it to be obviously insufficient,” Murphy remarked, although he acknowledged that his previous ruling did not specify an exact timeframe for advance notice before third-country deportations were enacted.
The court hearing unfolded as the deported individuals were on a plane headed to South Sudan. Judge Murphy ordered that these men not be released from U.S. custody without his explicit permission. He also indicated that he would contemplate whether the administration's actions could be viewed as “criminally contemptuous,” though he postponed a final decision on this matter.
This hearing followed a contentious press conference in Washington, where senior Trump administration officials criticized Judge Murphy, labeling him as “a local judge in Massachusetts” attempting to influence U.S. policy on national security. The officials presented the deportations as part of an ongoing “diplomatic and military” operation that remains partially classified. They emphasized that each of the deported men had prior convictions for serious violent felonies, including rape and murder.
DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin stated, “It is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America. These are the monsters that the district judge is trying to protect.” This argument reflects a broader tension between judicial oversight and executive power in matters of national security.
During the court proceedings, Justice Department attorneys referenced a 2020 Supreme Court decision that upheld expedited deportation procedures for certain foreign nationals. They argued that these rulings enabled individuals to be expelled from the United States within hours. Nonetheless, Judge Murphy countered that the circumstances of the Sri Lankan citizen involved in that case were “not remotely similar” to those experienced by the seven men being abruptly deported to South Sudan.
Among the seven men deported to South Sudan, their backgrounds are notably diverse. Two are from Cuba, two from Myanmar, one from Laos, one from Mexico, and one from Vietnam. Additionally, one citizen of South Sudan was also aboard the flight, as confirmed by DHS officials. These deportees had been apprehended by immigration authorities in the U.S. between January and earlier this month.
As this situation continues to unfold, the intersection of immigration policy, judicial authority, and human rights remains a focal point of national debate, raising critical questions about the future of U.S. deportation practices and their implications for those seeking refuge from violence and persecution.
