The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants to South Sudan, a war-torn nation where the individuals have no personal ties. This strategy has sparked alarm among human rights advocates and dissenting justices.
The decision, issued on Thursday, supports the government’s authority to swiftly deport non-citizens to third countries, even if they are not the immigrants’ countries of origin. The ruling effectively overturns a prior order that had allowed the individuals to challenge removals to countries where they might face serious danger, including torture or death.
As a result of the ruling, a delayed deportation flight originally bound for South Sudan in May can now proceed. The individuals aboard had previously been removed to Djibouti, awaiting a final legal outcome.
This decision reverses the finding of federal Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts, who had initially ruled that the migrants had the right to contest deportation to countries like South Sudan. Despite the Supreme Court lifting his broader ruling, Murphy had insisted his injunction still applied to those specific individuals. The Trump administration had sharply criticized the judge’s stance, calling it “a lawless act of defiance.”
Dissent and Human Rights Concerns
Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson issued strong dissents.
“What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,” Sotomayor wrote.
She further criticized the majority decision, saying it underscores how “the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial” while other litigants are required to follow strict procedural rules.
The men involved in this deportation had been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S., and were deemed removable. However, Judge Murphy — appointed by President Joe Biden — emphasized that deportation to third-party nations must still allow individuals to present evidence of potential danger, even if the final destination is not their country of origin.
Broader Immigration Context
The ruling comes amid a broader immigration crackdown under the Republican administration of Donald Trump, which has vowed to deport millions of undocumented individuals.
In cases where immigrants cannot be sent directly to their home countries, the U.S. has sought agreements with third countries willing to accept them. In this instance, South Sudan, still reeling from years of civil conflict, was designated to receive the deportees.
The case has reignited debate over the legal and moral limits of U.S. deportation policy, particularly when it involves sending individuals to unstable or hostile environments where they face a credible risk of harm.
