Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
In an action that prompted a sharp dissent from its three liberal justices, the court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called 'third countries' get a 'meaningful opportunity' to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out.
Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18.
The Supreme Court's brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common when it decides emergency requests. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the two other liberal justices, called the decision a 'gross abuse' of the court's power.
'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,' Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor called the court's action 'as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.'
Murphy had 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 U.S. 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.
After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and to gain chance to assert the harms they could face.
Murphy on May 21 found the Trump administration violated his order requiring additional steps before attempting to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, which the U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.'
The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti.
After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Murphy in a court order made clear that his decision preventing the rapid deportation of eight men to South Sudan 'remains in full force and effect.'
Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs, called the ramifications of the court's action 'horrifying,' stripping away 'critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death.'
The administration told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. It said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed 'heinous crimes' in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery.
'The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said after Monday's decision.
'Fire up the deportation planes,' said Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin.
A FLOOD OF CASES
The dispute is one of many legal challenges to Trump policies to have reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January.
The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants whom Trump targeted for removal under the Alien Enemies Act – a 1798 law that historically has been employed only in wartime – as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
Sotomayor said that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. 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 the separate Alien Enemies Act litigation in which questions were raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case.
'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.'
The administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold.
Reuters has also reported that U.S. officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
TimesLIVE
4 hours ago
- TimesLIVE
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
The US Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for President Donald Trump's administration to resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. In an action that prompted sharp dissent from its three liberal justices, the court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to 'third countries' get a 'meaningful opportunity' to tell US officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based US district judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18. The Supreme Court's brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common when it decides emergency requests. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the two other liberal justices, called the decision a 'gross abuse' of the court's power. 'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,' Sotomayor wrote. She called the court's action 'as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable'. Murphy had found 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.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
US judge blocks Trump plan to close Harvard's doors to international students
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued an injunction barring Trump's administration from carrying out its latest bid to curtail Harvard's ability to host international students amid an escalating fight pitting the Republican president against the prestigious Ivy League school. The preliminary injunction extends a temporary order the judge issued on June 5 that prevented the administration from enforcing a proclamation Trump signed a day earlier that cited national security concerns to justify why Harvard could no longer be trusted to host international students. She ruled after Trump's Friday announcement that his administration could announce a deal with Harvard 'over the next week or so' to resolve the White House's campaign against the university, which has waged a legal battle against the administration's various actions against the school. Trump signed the proclamation after his administration had already frozen billions of dollars in funding to the oldest and wealthiest U.S. university, threatened Harvard's tax-exempt status and launched several investigations into the school. The proclamation prohibited foreign nationals from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard or participate in exchange visitor programs for an initial period of six months, and directed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider whether to revoke visas of international students already enrolled at Harvard. But Burroughs said Trump's administration was likely violating Harvard's free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment by retaliating against it for refusing to meet its demands to cede control over the school's curriculum and admissions and by targeting it based on what officials viewed as the university's left-leaning orientation. The judge said that 'at its root, this case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism.' 'Here, the government's misplaced efforts to control a reputable academic institution and squelch diverse viewpoints seemingly because they are, in some instances, opposed to this Administration's own views, threaten these rights,' she wrote. Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Harvard said the ruling will allow it to continue hosting international students and scholars while this case moves forward. It added it will continue to defend the rights of the school, its students and scholars. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The university has filed two separate lawsuits before Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic President Barack Obama, seeking to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in funding and to prevent the administration from blocking the ability of international students to attend the university. The latter lawsuit was filed after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem on May 22 announced that her department was immediately revoking Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, which allows it to enroll foreign students. Almost 6,800 international students attended Harvard in its most recent school year, making up about 27% of its student population. Noem, without providing evidence, accused the university of 'fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party.' Her action was temporarily blocked by Burroughs almost immediately. While the Department of Homeland Security has since shifted to challenging Harvard's certification through a lengthier administrative process, Burroughs at a May 29 hearing said she planned to issue an injunction to maintain the status quo, which she did officially on Friday. A week after the hearing, Trump signed his proclamation, which cited concerns about Harvard's acceptance of foreign money including from China and what it said was an inadequate response by the school to his administration's demand for information on foreign students. His administration has accused Harvard of creating an unsafe environment for Jewish students and allowing antisemitism to fester on its campus. Protests over U.S. ally Israel's treatment of Palestinians during its war in Gaza have roiled numerous universities' campuses, including Harvard's. Rights advocates have noted rising antisemitism and Islamophobia in the U.S. due to the war. The Trump administration has thus far announced no action over anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate. Harvard's own antisemitism and Islamophobia task forces found widespread fear and bigotry at the university in reports released in late April.
Daily Maverick
6 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
In an action that prompted a sharp dissent from its three liberal justices, the court granted the administration's request to lift a judicial order requiring that migrants set for deportation to so-called 'third countries' get a 'meaningful opportunity' to tell U.S. officials they are at risk of torture at their new destination, while a legal challenge plays out. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had issued the order on April 18. The Supreme Court's brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common when it decides emergency requests. The court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the two other liberal justices, called the decision a 'gross abuse' of the court's power. 'Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,' Sotomayor wrote. Sotomayor called the court's action 'as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.' Murphy had 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 U.S. 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. After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and to gain chance to assert the harms they could face. Murphy on May 21 found the Trump administration violated his order requiring additional steps before attempting to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, which the U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid 'due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.' The judge's intervention prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, Murphy in a court order made clear that his decision preventing the rapid deportation of eight men to South Sudan 'remains in full force and effect.' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs, called the ramifications of the court's action 'horrifying,' stripping away 'critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death.' The administration told the Supreme Court that its third-country policy already complied with due process and is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. It said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed 'heinous crimes' in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. 'The Supreme Court's stay of a left-wing district judge's injunction reaffirms the president's authority to remove criminal illegal aliens from our country and Make America Safe Again,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said after Monday's decision. 'Fire up the deportation planes,' said Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. A FLOOD OF CASES The dispute is one of many legal challenges to Trump policies to have reached the nation's highest judicial body since he returned to office in January. The Supreme Court in May let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants whom Trump targeted for removal under the Alien Enemies Act – a 1798 law that historically has been employed only in wartime – as inadequate under constitutional due process protections. Sotomayor said that in sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another instance four others to the U.S. 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 the separate Alien Enemies Act litigation in which questions were raised about the administration's compliance with an order issued by a judge in that case. '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.' The administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. Reuters has also reported that U.S. officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees.
