US supreme court clears way for deportations of eight men to South Sudan
Most of the men are from countries including Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba and Myanmar. Just one is from South Sudan.
The supreme court's order on Thursday came after the court's conservative majority last month decided that immigration officials can quickly deport people to countries to which they have no connection. That order paused a district judge's earlier ruling that immigrants being sent to third countries must first be given an opportunity to prove they would face torture, persecution or death if they were sent there.
Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the eight men and executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said the eight men could 'face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival'.
Two liberal justices dissented – Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – by saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. '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.
'Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,' she added.
The Trump administration has been seeking deals with various countries to accept deportees that the US government cannot quickly send back to their homelands.
The eight men awaiting deportation to South Sudan have all been convicted of serious crimes, which the Trump administration has emphasized in justifying their banishment. Many had either finished or were close to finishing serving sentences, and had 'orders of removal' directing them to leave the US.
Some, like Tuan Thanh Phan – who came to the United States from Vietnam as a child and was convicted of killing someone in a gang altercation when he was 18 – had already planned to return to his home country after serving his sentence.
Instead, the US government first told these men that they would be deported to South Africa, and they were asked to sign documents acknowledging their deportation. They refused, and their case came before judge Brian E Murphy of the district of Massachusetts, who ruled that the government must provide 'written notice' to any immigrant facing deportation to a third country, and give them an opportunity to voice a 'reasonable fear' of torture.
The men were told instead that they were being deported to South Sudan. The government did not provide Murphy with immediate information about where the men were, and where they were being sent. Eventually, their flight landed in Camp Lemonnier, an American military base in Djibouti.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents worked 12-hour shifts guarding the men. In a sworn court declaration, an official described illness among the detainees and government agents, inadequate medical care, risks of malaria and worry about attacks from militants in Yemen.
In May, the Trump administration asked the supreme court to intervene and allow the government to deport the men to South Sudan.
They sought agreements with several countries to house immigrants if authorities could not quickly send them back to their homelands.
The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
The Associated Press contributed reporting
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
13 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' The government has been approached for further comment.
Western Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Western Telegraph
Gender critical campaigners demand action from government on toilet access
Sex Matters, which intervened in the For Women Scotland case against which went to the Supreme Court, are threatening a lawsuit against Scottish ministers – with the latest letter demanding action by a deadline of next Wednesday. The Supreme Court's ruling in April said the words 'woman' and 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to a biological woman and biological sex. Sex Matters say the government must make a statement that all single-sex facilities on its estate must be interpreted as meaning biological sex. Ministers, including John Swinney, say they accept the judgment and have convened a working group to review their policies, as well as having discussions with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission. John Swinney has said he accepts the ruling (Jane Barlow/PA) The campaign group, led by Maya Forstater, sent its first letter before action in June and another was sent to Scottish Government officials on Wednesday. The latest letter gives the government seven days to respond and says: 'To the extent that the Scottish Government does not immediately stop the unlawful practices set out in this letter we may decide to commence proceedings without further warning.' It notes there are 1,016 toilets across the government's core estate, in a mixture of unisex and separate-sex facilities. The letter calls on the government to make a statement that 'all facilities designated as male or female within the Scottish Government estate are to be interpreted as meaning biological sex, and that gender-neutral options are widely available'. A Scottish Government's official responded to Sex Matters' previous letter, saying they accept the Supreme Court ruling. The letter, dated June 27, said: 'We are now taking action to implement the ruling. 'This includes the establishment of a short life working group to review existing policies, guidance and legislation which may be impacted by the judgment. 'The work of this group is under way and covers all relevant portfolios across government. 'This work is enabling us towards a state of readiness to take all necessary steps to implement the ruling.' The government has been approached for further comment.
ITV News
27 minutes ago
- ITV News
How Amanda Knox tells her kids their mummy was jailed for murder
Amanda Knox's every move has been scrutinised for nearly all of her adult life. The murder of Meredith Kercher - and the subsequent arrest, trial, conviction, imprisonment, acquittal and release of Knox, then her retrial, second conviction, and ultimately her definitive exoneration by Italy's Supreme Court in 2015 - is a story that has made headlines around the world for almost twenty years. Amanda is now 37, a wife to an author and podcaster, Christopher Robinson, and a mother of two children, Eureka and Echo, but still - as she put it to me - she is "forever branded the girl accused of murder". I first met Amanda Knox when I worked for ITV in the US in 2013. I had negotiated with her legal team and her family for months, for her to agree to do an interview with us. As soon as she agreed, we travelled from the East coast to the West to meet her, in her hometown of Seattle. On the day we were to record the interview, we set up, and then just sat and waited and waited and waited for her to arrive at the hotel, and I was nervous. Would she turn up? What would she really be like? Was she a murderer or not? When I met her, she had been cleared and freed two years earlier and flown straight back to the US, but here we were, 24 months on, and she was about to be retried in absentia for Meredith Kercher's murder. Knox was terrified of being extradited back to Italy. I was a journalist, yes, but I had watched everything the British public had watched, everything they'd read in those six years, since her name first hit the headlines in 2007. My fascination was heightened even further because, at 21, I too had gone on a year abroad to a foreign country to study a different language, and had a British roommate. I was gripped, completely gripped, by the intrigue that encircled Amanda Knox. The salacious details of the case and the relentless media circus that surrounded her, had fuelled it. I knew I'd be adding to that by doing this interview, but she wanted to do it to plead her innocence again, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to meet her. When she turned up that day in Seattle, she was softly-spoken, polite and articulate, yet deeply traumatised. Twelve years on from that meeting, and she was similarly calm and composed, but within minutes of us saying "hello", that calmness was interrupted by her 18-month old son Echo. He'd burst into the room at her end, just as the Zoom call was beginning. He doesn't ever like to be parted from her for long, she told me. For me though, it was a sudden realisation how her life has changed and evolved, and that time does move on, even though perceptions often don't. She had agreed to chat to me this time, because her second book, Free - My Search for Meaning, has just been published. Naturally, she wants to promote it and she is no stranger to putting pen to paper. Her first book was called Waiting To Be Heard, so I asked why she felt the need to write another one, and if she does now finally feel free. "I'm not known for something I did; I am known for something that I didn't do and am treated as a morbid curiosity," she told me. "When people think of this case they don't remember Meredith's name, they remember mine. They don't even remember the murderer's name, they just remember mine. "This is the story of how I have survived that experience, how I navigated the prison environment and how I discovered upon being released from prison, that I did not go back to being an anonymous person. "My very identity is tied up and attached to the death of my friend." I then asked her if every day feels like she's on trial - people in the street, Mums in the playground - wondering, did she or didn't she? "I feel like I am going to spend the rest of my life proving my innocence," she replied. Amanda moved to Perugia in Italy to study, aged 20. So had Meredith Kercher, but her body was found in the home they shared. She had been raped and brutally murdered on 2 November, 2007. Both girls' lives changed forever. Suspicion soon fell on Amanda and her Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito. They'd only being seeing each other for four days at that point. Amanda and Raffaele were both found guilty of Meredith's murder in a high-profile court case, that was as much a media battle as a legal one. She was cemented into the public's psyche as "Foxy Noxy," which was a nickname given to her in 5th grade because she was a good soccer player, and it was picked up by the media from her Myspace page after she was arrested in Italy. But, it is the prosecutor in her murder trial - Giuliano Mignini - who put her in jail for 4 years - who is the person she holds responsible for creating the "she-devil, femme fatale" narrative around her. "He, from the very beginning, has been a nightmarish figure in my life," she said. "He created a monster from an innocent person." In her new book, Amanda writes about the relationship she has since established with him, and her need to return to Italy - after the pandemic - to meet him face to face. Her family did not want her to, but she did. I asked her about it: "You went back to Italy because you wanted to meet him. Why did you do that? What did you want from that?" "I think that everyone who has been hurt by another human being wants to know why and wants to know if the person who hurt them realises what they did," she replied. "Did you want him to change his mind, Amanda?" "Of course I did" "Did he?," I pushed. "I would say, yes," she said. "His perspective about the case has evolved with time and with coming to know me as a human being. He does not believe that I am capable of the crime now." We also talked about the mistakes she's made since being released, her struggles with what freedom really means for her, her friendship with Monica Lewinsky, another vilified woman in the United States, and the ultimate effect it's had on her family. Amanda got emotional several times in the interview about how, now that she is a mother, she finally understands how her own mother felt watching her be wrongfully convicted, go to prison and be helpless to do anything about it. She said the first thing she said to her own daughter, just minutes after Eureka was born, was, "I'm sorry." Amanda is fearful that she will pass on her trauma, and the stigma that she lives with, to her children. Then, she went on to tell me what I have never heard her say before. How she has explained her murder conviction to her daughter. This is what she said to Eureka, who is three years old: "When Mummy was young, Mummy went to go study in a foreign country, and it was beautiful, and she made friends. And then out of the blue, someone hurt her friend really badly and they thought Mummy hurt her friend and so they put Mummy in jail. And then Mummy had to prove that she was innocent and she got out of prison and she got on with her life. She met papa. She had you. The end." But how Eureka has interpreted the story made me gasp. Amanda revealed: "She'll now want to play 'Mummy Goes to Italy' with me. So, she'll have me re-enact being behind prison bars or she'll pretend to be Mummy. "Like if we see a playground where they have bars, she'll be like, oh look, 'I'm Mummy in prison'. "She is processing it the way children process things, which is through play." Despite what Amanda Knox and her family have endured, I was at pains to talk about Meredith. She is the 21-year old at the heart of this story. A young, British girl murdered on her exciting, year abroad by Rudy Guede, a known burglar, who served 13 years of a 16 year sentence for the crime. I asked Amanda if she thought about Meredith. "Oh my God, every day. She was just like me, she was one year older than me, she liked to read, she was studying journalism, she loved the Italian culture and the Italian language. "We had so much in common, and everything was taken from her. I think about her a lot." The Kercher family has never wished to engage with Amanda. "Does it bother you that they perhaps don't think you're innocent?" I asked her. "It 100% bothers me. I've literally never had access to Meredith's family, ever. I've never met them. "They don't know who I am, and they only know me through the worst context possible." I was curious as to what she would say to them now, after all this time has passed. "I want to grieve with you. And, it's not fair what happened, it's not. And I understand why it feels like [they] never got justice for her because [they] didn't. And, and I care about that." Whatever your own thoughts are on Amanda's innocence or guilt, the legal facts remain. She has been definitively exonerated of Meredith's murder. Meredith's killer was tried, jailed, and has served his sentence and been released from prison. The legal purgatory is over for Amanda Knox, but the cultural purgatory will probably always remain.
