Migrants in US detention lose appeal against deportation to South Sudan
On Friday, Judge Brian Murphy of Boston denied the eleventh-hour appeal, which has been the subject of a flurry of legal activity throughout the day.
The appeal argued that repeated efforts under President Donald Trump to deport the men to South Sudan was 'impermissibly punitive'. It pointed out that the US Constitution bars 'cruel and unusual punishment'.
In the past, the US Department of State has accused South Sudan of 'extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cases of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment'. It advises no American citizen to travel there due to an ongoing armed conflict.
But the US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the Trump administration could indeed deport the men to countries outside of their homelands. Its latest decision was issued on Thursday.
The US Department of Justice indicated that the eight men were set to be flown to South Sudan by 7pm US Eastern Time (23:00 GMT) on Friday. They hailed from countries like Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam.
The last-ditch appeal was filed on Thursday night, shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision.
Initially, the case was assigned to US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, DC, who signalled he was sympathetic to the deportees' request.
He briefly ordered the deportation to be paused until 4:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT), but ultimately, he decided to transfer the case back to Murphy, the judge whose decisions helped precipitate the Supreme Court's rulings.
Murphy had previously issued injunctions against the deportations to South Sudan, leading to successful appeals from the Trump administration. The eight men, meanwhile, had been held at a military base in Djibouti while the courts decided their fate.
Before he transferred the case back to Murphy, however, Judge Moss said it was possible the deportees could prove their case that the Trump administration intended to subject them to abuse.
'It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical wellbeing is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others,' Moss said during the hearing.
Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, argued that the deportation's continued delay would strain relations with countries willing to accept migrants from other countries.
Murphy, who denied Friday's request, had previously ruled in favour of the deportees, issuing an injunction against their removal to South Sudan and saying they had a right to contest the deportation based on fears for their safety.
The Supreme Court first lifted the injunction on June 23 and clarified its ruling again on Thursday, giving a subtle rebuke to Judge Murphy.
The Trump administration has been pushing for rapid removals as part of its campaign of mass deportation, one of President Trump's signature priorities.
Opponents have accused the administration of steamrolling the human rights of undocumented people in order to achieve its aims, including the right to due process under the law.
But the Trump administration has framed undocumented migration as an 'invasion' that constitutes a national security crisis, and it argued that its strong-armed efforts are needed to expel criminals.
The eight migrants slated to be sent to South Sudan, it said, were 'barbaric, violent criminal illegal aliens'. It added that they had been found guilty of crimes, including first-degree murder, robbery and sexual assault.
'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release on Thursday.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
US-Israel talks aim 'to impose outcome later'
US-Israel talks aim "to impose outcome later" Quotable Video Duration 01 minutes 37 seconds 01:37 Video Duration 01 minutes 11 seconds 01:11 Video Duration 01 minutes 06 seconds 01:06 Video Duration 01 minutes 01 seconds 01:01 Video Duration 01 minutes 06 seconds 01:06 Video Duration 01 minutes 13 seconds 01:13 Video Duration 01 minutes 26 seconds 01:26
Al Jazeera
2 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Iran has not agreed to inspections or given up enrichment, says Trump
United States President Donald Trump has said Iran has not agreed to inspections of its nuclear programme or to giving up enriching uranium. He told reporters on board Air Force One on Friday that he believed Tehran's nuclear programme had been 'set back permanently', although he conceded Iran could restart it at a different location. Trump said he would discuss Iran with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the White House on Monday, where a potential Gaza ceasefire is expected to top the agenda. Trump said, as he travelled to New Jersey after an Independence Day celebration at the White House, 'I would think they'd have to start at a different location. And if they did start, it would be a problem.' Trump said he would not allow Tehran to resume its nuclear programme, adding that Iranian officials wanted to meet with him. The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Friday it had pulled out its inspectors from Iran as a standoff deepens over their return to the country's nuclear facilities that were bombed by the US and Israel. The US and Israel say Iran was enriching uranium to build nuclear weapons. Tehran denies wanting to produce a nuclear bomb, reiterating for years that its nuclear programme has been for civilian use only. Neither US intelligence nor the UN nuclear watchdog chief Rafael Grossi said they had found any proof that Tehran was building a nuclear weapon. Israel launched its first military strikes on Iran's nuclear sites in a 12-day war with the Islamic Republic three weeks ago, with the US intervening on the side of its staunch ally by launching massive strikes on the sites on June 22. The IAEA's inspectors have been unable to inspect Iran's facilities since the beginning of the conflict, even though Grossi has said that it is his top priority. Grossi stressed 'the crucial importance' of holding talks with Iran to resume its monitoring and verification work as soon as possible. Distrust of IAEA In the aftermath of the US and Israeli attacks, Iran, which has said it is still committed to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), made painfully clear its burgeoning distrust of the IAEA. Since the start of the conflict, Iranian officials have sharply criticised the IAEA, not only for failing to condemn the Israeli and US strikes, but also for passing a resolution on June 12 accusing Tehran of non-compliance with its nuclear obligations, the day before Israel attacked. On Wednesday, Iran's President Masoud Pezeshkian ordered the country to cut ties with the nuclear watchdog. A bill to suspend cooperation had already been passed in the Iranian parliament and approved by the country's Guardian Council. Guardian Council spokesperson Hadi Tahan Nazif said the decision had been taken for the 'full respect for the national sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran'. The bill itself says the suspension 'will remain in effect until certain conditions are met, including the guaranteed security of nuclear facilities and scientists', according to Iranian state television. While the IAEA says Iran has not yet formally informed it of any suspension, it is unclear when the agency's inspectors will be able to return to Iran. On Monday, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi summarily dismissed Grossi's request to visit nuclear facilities bombed by Israel and the US. 'Grossi's insistence on visiting the bombed sites under the pretext of safeguards is meaningless and possibly even malign in intent,' Araghchi said. The US claims military strikes either destroyed or badly damaged Iran's three uranium enrichment sites. But it was less clear what had happened to much of Iran's nine tonnes of enriched uranium, especially the more than 400kg (880 pounds) enriched to up to 60 percent purity, a closer step but not in the realm of weapons grade at 90 percent or more.
Al Jazeera
10 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Migrants in US detention lose appeal against deportation to South Sudan
Eight migrants in United States custody have lost a last-ditch attempt to avoid deportation to South Sudan, a country facing ongoing criticism for human rights abuses. On Friday, Judge Brian Murphy of Boston denied the eleventh-hour appeal, which has been the subject of a flurry of legal activity throughout the day. The appeal argued that repeated efforts under President Donald Trump to deport the men to South Sudan was 'impermissibly punitive'. It pointed out that the US Constitution bars 'cruel and unusual punishment'. In the past, the US Department of State has accused South Sudan of 'extrajudicial killings, forced disappearances, torture and cases of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment'. It advises no American citizen to travel there due to an ongoing armed conflict. But the US Supreme Court has twice ruled that the Trump administration could indeed deport the men to countries outside of their homelands. Its latest decision was issued on Thursday. The US Department of Justice indicated that the eight men were set to be flown to South Sudan by 7pm US Eastern Time (23:00 GMT) on Friday. They hailed from countries like Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Sudan and Vietnam. The last-ditch appeal was filed on Thursday night, shortly after the Supreme Court rendered its decision. Initially, the case was assigned to US District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington, DC, who signalled he was sympathetic to the deportees' request. He briefly ordered the deportation to be paused until 4:30pm Eastern Time (20:30 GMT), but ultimately, he decided to transfer the case back to Murphy, the judge whose decisions helped precipitate the Supreme Court's rulings. Murphy had previously issued injunctions against the deportations to South Sudan, leading to successful appeals from the Trump administration. The eight men, meanwhile, had been held at a military base in Djibouti while the courts decided their fate. Before he transferred the case back to Murphy, however, Judge Moss said it was possible the deportees could prove their case that the Trump administration intended to subject them to abuse. 'It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical wellbeing is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others,' Moss said during the hearing. Lawyers for the Trump administration, meanwhile, argued that the deportation's continued delay would strain relations with countries willing to accept migrants from other countries. Murphy, who denied Friday's request, had previously ruled in favour of the deportees, issuing an injunction against their removal to South Sudan and saying they had a right to contest the deportation based on fears for their safety. The Supreme Court first lifted the injunction on June 23 and clarified its ruling again on Thursday, giving a subtle rebuke to Judge Murphy. The Trump administration has been pushing for rapid removals as part of its campaign of mass deportation, one of President Trump's signature priorities. Opponents have accused the administration of steamrolling the human rights of undocumented people in order to achieve its aims, including the right to due process under the law. But the Trump administration has framed undocumented migration as an 'invasion' that constitutes a national security crisis, and it argued that its strong-armed efforts are needed to expel criminals. The eight migrants slated to be sent to South Sudan, it said, were 'barbaric, violent criminal illegal aliens'. It added that they had been found guilty of crimes, including first-degree murder, robbery and sexual assault. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a news release on Thursday.
