
Trump admin clashes with judge over Supreme Court deportation ruling
President Donald Trump's administration accused a federal judge on Tuesday of defying the US Supreme Court's authority, escalating a fight over a group of eight migrants who it had sought to rapidly deport to politically unstable South Sudan.In a filing to the Supreme Court, the Justice Department said US District Judge Brian Murphy showed "unprecedented defiance" by ignoring Monday's decision by the justices that let the administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face.advertisementMonday's decision lifted the Boston-based judge's April 18 injunction requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" get a "meaningful opportunity" to tell US officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination.
It was the latest legal victory for Trump at the Supreme Court in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The Supreme Court's three liberal justices dissented. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.After the Supreme Court's decision, Murphy issued an order clarifying that its action did not apply to the judge's separate May 21 decision that the administration violated his injunction in attempting to send the migrants to South Sudan. The US State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict."Murphy's May 21 order prompted the US government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety.advertisementThe Justice Department urged the Supreme Court on Tuesday to clarify that its order lifting Murphy's injunction also applies to the May 21 decision concerning South Sudan."The district court's ruling of (Monday) night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive's lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals," the Justice Department wrote in its filing.The Justice Department said its agents are being "forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict."The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.The escalating dispute comes as the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders, including in the third-country deportation litigation.Liberal Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in a dissent on Monday that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and on to El Salvador, the administration "openly flouted two court orders" issued by Murphy.Sotomayor also pointed to separate litigation over Trump's invocation of an 18th century law historically used only in wartime to justify deportations - a legal dispute in which questions have been raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case.advertisement"This is not the first time the court closes its eyes to noncompliance, nor, I fear, will it be the last," Sotomayor wrote. "Yet each time this court rewards noncompliance with discretionary relief, it further erodes respect for courts and for the rule of law."Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates the US Constitution's due process protections. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.Lawyers representing the migrants in a class action lawsuit asked the Supreme Court to reject the administration's latest request. The administration wants to "deport these men to South Sudan with no process at all," the lawyers said."The lives and safety of eight members of the nationally certified class in this case are at imminent risk," they added.- EndsTune InMust Watch
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Hindustan Times
37 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Ready to dissolve assembly if statehood is restored: J&K CM
Jun 25, 2025 08:18 AM IST Chief minister Omar Abdullah on Tuesday said he is ready to dissolve assembly if statehood is restored in Jammu and Kashmir. Jammu and Kashmir chief minister Omar Abdullah (File) Omar who was in Gulmarg on Tuesday while responding to a recent report that if statehood is restored then J&K has to hold fresh assembly polls. 'As soon as the statehood is restored in J&K is a very good thing. I read in one newspaper that for restoration of statehood, the dissolution of assembly is mandatory. They should do it.' Omar said that he isn't concerned about his chair and statehood is the right of people of J&K. 'I know who has planted this story with an aim to scare the assembly members who won't press for restoration of the statehood for next five years. This statehood isn't for any legislator or government this statehood is for people of J&K,' he said adding that legislator won't get scared by this warning. 'You should do it. The day statehood gets restored next day I will write to lieutenant governor to dissolve this assembly. Don't try to threaten us. Statehood is our right,' he said. On Saturday, National Conference president Farooq Abdullah had said that his party would move the Supreme Court if there is an inordinate delay in the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir. 'Once statehood comes all the powers of the elected government will be restored. I am hopeful for the restoration,' Omar told reporters..'If the statehood is delayed then we will have no option but to move to the Supreme Court,' he said. Recently during the flag off ceremony of Vande Bharat train, J&K chief minister Omar Abdullah had raised the statehood issue in front of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The J&K CM also raised statehood issues when PM Modi inaugurated Z Morh tunnel. The BJP leaders and central ministers have maintained that J&K will get statehood at an appropriate time, even some BJP leaders linked the J&K's statehood to an improvement in law and order situation.


News18
an hour ago
- News18
Raipur Couple Kills Disabled Man Over Land Dispute, Hides Body In Cement-Filled Trunk
Last Updated: Preliminary interrogation revealed that Raipur-based lawyer Ankit Upadhyay and his wife conspired to kill the victim Kishore Paikra A gruesome murder case unravelled after the body of a disabled man was found encased in cement, stuffed inside a suitcase, and locked within a steel trunk dumped in a residential area of Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The investigation quickly led police to Delhi airport, where a married couple suspected of orchestrating the murder was arrested, The Times of India (TOI) reported. According to Raipur SSP Lal Umed Singh, preliminary interrogation revealed that Raipur-based lawyer Ankit Upadhyay and his wife conspired to murder Kishore Paikra following a dispute over a land brokerage deal. 'The murder was motivated by a financial disagreement after Paikra was allegedly cheated in a land deal," Singh told TOI. Investigators tracked the suspects through CCTV footage, which showed a car entering Raipur's DD Nagar on Monday. Two men are seen getting out of the vehicle and unloading the trunk containing the body, while a woman with her face covered followed the car on a two-wheeler. Police suspect the car bore a fake number plate. The investigation uncovered that Paikra, who was wheelchair-bound and lived in Handipara's HMT Chowk, had earlier sold a plot of land in Mohadi village with Ankit's assistance for Rs 50 lakh, but allegedly received Rs 20 lakh less than agreed. When Paikra threatened to file a police complaint over the missing payment, Ankit and his wife allegedly planned and executed the murder. The couple, originally from Changorabhatha village, was flown back to Raipur late Tuesday after their arrest at the airport, TOI reported. First Published:


New Indian Express
an hour ago
- New Indian Express
Clamour for action against HC judge grows at House panel meet
According to sources, the Department of Justice made a presentation on 'Judicial Processes and Their Reform', addressing concerns such as the code of conduct for judges of the higher judiciary and the issue of post-retirement appointments. They also called for a comprehensive report to be prepared and presented at the panel's next meeting. A source said that MPs sought clarification on why no action had been taken in the case involving the recovery of unaccounted cash from Justice Yashwant Varma's residence. They also pressed for a formal code of conduct to be implemented. Some MPs also questioned why no motion had yet been introduced to remove Justice Varma. The lawmakers expressed that the government should already have moved a motion to remove the judge in question — especially in light of findings from a Supreme Court-appointed committee of judges, which confirmed the cash recovery. Deliberating on broader aspects, MPs opined that judges should not be eligible for government appointments for five years after retirement. Discussions included suggestions that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other roles by the President immediately after retiring. The Rajya Sabha committee is chaired by BJP MP Brij Lal and includes former Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi (a nominated MP), former Minister of State for Law PP Chaudhary, TMC MPs Sukhendu Sekhar Ray and Kalyan Banerjee, Congress's Vivek Tankha, and DMK members P Wilson and A Raja among its key members. 'Former judges should not be appointed as MPs' Deliberating on broader aspects, MPs opined that judges should not be eligible for government appointments for five years after retirement. Discussions included suggestions that former judges should not be appointed as MPs or to any other roles by the President immediately after retiring.