In a decision that cracked open a fierce debate over executive authority and constitutional safeguards, the U.S. Supreme Court gave a green light to President Donald Trump’s administration to proceed with deporting eight migrants to South Sudan—despite ongoing concerns over safety, due process, and judicial defiance.
The high court’s conservative majority granted the administration’s request to lift judicial roadblocks, specifically a Boston federal judge’s injunction that required the government to give migrants a chance to argue they could face torture in the third countries they’re being sent to. That ruling, issued by Judge Brian Murphy in April, had cast a temporary shield around a group of men marked for removal to war-torn South Sudan—a nation the U.S. State Department itself advises Americans to avoid due to violent conflict and kidnapping risks.
But that shield is now gone. And so are the limits.
The Department of Homeland Security wasted no time celebrating. A top official declared that the decision marked a win for “rule of law” and national security, promising the men would be “in South Sudan by Friday.”
The Supreme Court’s June 23 intervention had already frozen Murphy’s April injunction. On Thursday, the justices went a step further, clarifying that their decision also blocks Murphy’s May 21 follow-up order—an attempt to reinforce his initial ruling after the administration attempted to carry out deportations anyway.
Liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson sharply dissented. In her rebuke, Sotomayor warned that the court’s message was clear: “Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.”
Justice Elena Kagan, though sympathetic to the due process concerns raised earlier, agreed with the majority on Thursday, stating a court can’t enforce an order that has already been stayed by the nation’s highest court.
Behind the legalese is a bitter fight over how—and how fast—immigrants can be expelled to places they’ve never called home. Trump’s “third-country removal” policy targets individuals whose home nations refuse to take them back, pushing them instead toward diplomatically-approved alternatives. Critics say it’s a legal sleight of hand that tramples basic rights.
Judge Murphy had earlier ruled the policy likely violates constitutional due process, which requires at least a chance to be heard before actions with serious consequences are taken. His May 21 order had instructed the government to provide such procedures. The administration instead held the migrants on a U.S. military base in Djibouti, waiting for higher courts to weigh in.
The Justice Department, accusing Murphy of judicial defiance, went back to the Supreme Court. The justices responded by saying plainly: stop enforcing the injunction.
That drew celebration from the White House, which accused “rogue judges” of overstepping their authority. “Today’s decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration,” said White House counsel David Warrington.
Immigrant rights advocates saw it differently.
“This ruling rewards the administration for violating a lawful court order,” said Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents the migrants. “Eight men are now at imminent risk of being sent into harm’s way.”
The administration maintains it has received “credible diplomatic assurances” from South Sudan that deportees will not be tortured—a claim many human rights organizations regard with skepticism, given the region’s volatile conditions.
The Supreme Court has recently let Trump push forward with several contentious immigration initiatives while legal battles unfold. In May, it allowed the rollback of humanitarian protections for thousands of migrants but also faulted the administration for inadequate due process in other cases.
The message now seems clearer than ever: the policy moves forward, and the fight continues—but for these eight men, time may be running out.
