A last-minute legal battle to stop the deportation of eight migrants from Djibouti to South Sudan came to an end on Thursday, July 3, when the U.S. Supreme Court, dominated by a conservative supermajority, cleared the way for their expulsion — despite strong opposition from a lower court.
Federal Judge Brian E. Murphy, appointed by President Joe Biden, had previously used all available legal means to block the deportations, arguing that the individuals should have the opportunity to demonstrate a credible risk of torture in their destination country. But the Supreme Court overruled his order in a decision issued without a public hearing or written explanation — part of a controversial practice known as the “shadow docket.”
The eight men had been held for over a month at Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. military base in Djibouti, awaiting the outcome of their legal proceedings. According to The New York Times, they were confined under heavy surveillance in an air-conditioned shipping container typically used as a conference room, shackled at the ankles except during showers, bathroom breaks, or remote consultations with attorneys.
“Fire up the deportation planes,” a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reportedly said following the ruling — a statement that underscores the Trump administration’s enthusiasm for exercising broader deportation powers.
Of the eight migrants, only one is a South Sudanese national. The others hail from a diverse group of countries including Vietnam, Mexico, South Korea, Cuba, Laos, and Myanmar. All have reportedly been convicted of serious crimes in the United States.
The Biden-appointed district judge had granted them a temporary reprieve under U.S. laws designed to prevent deportation to countries where individuals face a credible threat of torture — protections now effectively suspended by the high court’s decision.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the court’s actions, arguing that the federal government had failed to properly challenge the lower court’s order.
“The district court’s orders were not validly before this Court because the government never appealed them,” she wrote, joined in dissent by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
However, Justice Elena Kagan, often aligned with the court’s liberal wing, sided with the majority in this case. She issued a separate concurring opinion explaining her reasoning:
“I do not see how a district court can compel the enforcement of an order that this Court has already stayed,” she wrote, as reported by The New York Times.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes amid broader efforts by the Trump administration to accelerate removals, including deportations to “third countries” with which migrants may have little or no connection. South Sudan, plagued by ongoing violence and instability, has not publicly stated whether it has agreed to receive the men, raising serious legal and humanitarian concerns.
This ruling follows earlier decisions by the high court that have weakened legal protections for non-citizens, including the obligation to prove a risk of torture before deportation to certain countries. Immigration advocates warn that the Supreme Court is now prioritizing swift enforcement over due process, marking a significant shift in U.S. immigration jurisprudence.
By Emmanuel Paul – based on reporting from The New York Times
