Trump administration challenges court ruling on deportation flights to South Sudan
US President Donald Trump (File Image)
The Donald Trump administration on Friday filed two court documents against a ruling by district judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts, which said that a deportation flight to South Sudan
violated
his previous April injunction which allows deportees time to challenge an order to be sent to a country other than their own.
In the first filing, secretary of state Marco Rubio noted the order has already "complicated" US diplomacy with Libya, South Sudan and Djibouti, and presents a "serious threat" to the the US president's authority to conduct foreign policy,
Fox News
reported.
As per the filing, the ruling "interferes with the quiet diplomatic efforts and exacerbated internal political and security divisions" in Libya.
The order also threatens to "derail efforts to quietly rebuild a productive working relationship South Sudan," it added.
Rubio further said the order "causes harm" in Djibouti, which is "strategically located in the Horn of Africa" and is home to the only US military base on the African continent.
The deportees are being
temporarily held
at an American Naval base in Djibouti.
Meanwhile, in the second filing, the Trump administration urged the court to "reconsider" its decision.
"Because of the order, the US government is currently detaining dangerous criminals in a sensitive location without clear knowledge of when, how, or where this court will tolerate their release.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Click Here To Read More - micro segmentation software
Expertinspector
Click Here
Undo
This development has put impermissible, burdensome constraints on the President's ability to carry out his Article II powers, including his powers to command the military, manage relations with foreign nations, and execute our nation's immigration authorities" the filing stated.
The deportees "enjoyed the benefit of full process under the laws of the United States and were lawfully removed from the country," the filing claimed, calling for a stay if not a reconsideration of the order.
"These criminal aliens needed only state that they had a fear of removal to South Sudan to receive the other procedures required by the Court's April 18, 2025 injunction. The aliens did not do so. Therefore, DHS (Department of Homeland Security) attempted to remove these aliens, who have committed the most reprehensible violations of our nation's laws, to a place where they no longer pose a threat to the United States.
"
The flight left from Texas earlier this week with eight migrants from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico and South Sudan.
District judge Murphy issued the ruling on Tuesday after lawyers for the immigrants from Myanmar and Vietnam accused the Trump administration of illegally deporting their clients to third-party countries. They argue there is a court order blocking such removals.
Murphy asked the federal government to "maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the court finds that such removals were unlawful."
The US has third-party deportation agreements with a handful of countries, the most prominent being El Salvador, which has accepted hundreds of Venezuelan deportees from the Trump administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
18 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump Unleashes Biden 'Clone' Bombshell; Outrage Erupts Over ‘Execution' Claim
Donald Trump has reignited controversy with a shocking late-night post on Truth Social, implying that Joe Biden was "executed" in 2020 and replaced by engineered lookalikes. The post contained no context, just a link to a bizarre claim filled with phrases like 'soulless robots' and 'bio-engineered doubles.' While Trump didn't explain further, the internet exploded with divided reactions, critics slammed him as a conspiracy theorist, while loyal supporters echoed the wild claim. The uproar comes days after Trump publicly called Biden 'vicious' and 'not very bright,' urging Americans not to feel sorry for him. Meanwhile, Biden faces a deeply personal battle after being diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. His team has confirmed it's serious, but treatable through hormone therapy.
United News of India
22 minutes ago
- United News of India
US envoy to Ukraine backs Putin's claims of NATO using Russia-Ukraine conflict as a proxy war
Washington/Kyiv/Moscow, June 2 (UNI) The US special envoy to Ukraine, Keith Kellog, in a surprising move backed Russian President Vladimir Putin's claim that NATO is using the ongoing war between the two countries, to wage a proxy war against Moscow. Commenting on the way Europe has been using the war, Keith in an interview with Fox News said 'Putin made these comments, 'if you are going to supply them (Kyiv) with weapons, we will continue to be part of the aggressor,'" he said, reports Russian-state-media-TASS. "And he (Putin) considers this a proxy war with NATO as well right now. And frankly, in a way it is. Look at what the Europeans nations have done with support. It is clearly Putin sees this." Russia had earlier issued staunch warnings to countries, that any supply of long-range missiles to Ukraine would make those nations active participants in the war, and therefore, potential targets for Russian counterattacks. This has particularly true for Germany, with the Kremlin repeatedly issuing warnings of stark retaliation to Berlin, if it even attempts to supply its Taurus missiles to Ukraine. Speaking about the progress of Russian-Ukrainian negotiations, Kellogg said as for Russia's term sheet for a memorandum the United States "have not got it yet." However, he said that after contacts with the Europeans in London, a 22-point document was prepared, which includes a ceasefire in the air, on land and at sea, but neither side was completely satisfied with it. Kellog further expressed his confidence in the Trump administration's ability to end the long-protracted war. "Yes, I am confident. If anyone can do it, it's US President Donald Trump. Everyone is working very hard to make that happen", the special envoy stated. According to TASS, back in 2024, Putin recalled the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation) summit in Moscow, where he had repeatedly warned that the use of long-range weapons from the West on Russian territory would mean direct involvement of NATO in the conflict. UNI ANV GNK
Indian Express
22 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Framing the narrative war against Pakistan
Nobody ever really wins the war of narratives. Each side tells its own story — shaped by perceived triumphs, real or imagined — and believes in the glory of its version. No one cares what the other side claims, unless one side was materially and visibly vanquished in a physical fight. That rarely happens. Sample this: As India began striking terror infrastructure across Pakistan and Pakistan-occupied Kashmir on May 7, Pakistan claimed it had shot down six Indian aircraft. India denied it. In fact, New Delhi refused to confirm any losses until last week, when the Chief of Defence Staff tacitly acknowledged that a jet (maybe more, unspecified) had been downed, but that 'the tactical mistake was remedied, and the plan reimplemented' — an implicit way of saying: 'It matters not what we lost, as long as we ultimately won.' The standoff ended in a ceasefire, with each side walking away convinced it had the better of the exchange. India believes it called out Pakistan's nuclear bluff; Pakistan insists it gave as good as it got — claims that remain unverifiable in the fog of war. Meanwhile, Pakistan says little about the pounding its airbases received in the Indian response. So steeped in denial is the country's military establishment that its Army Chief has assumed the rank of Field Marshal — an honorific that reveals more about narrative vanity than battlefield reality. For its part, Delhi is convinced it humbled Pakistan. Islamabad, however, couldn't disagree more. 'We have shattered India's illusion of superiority,' says Pakistan's PM. 'New Delhi has been taught a lesson in respecting the sovereignty of its neighbours.' Even Washington had its version of events. President Trump triumphantly claimed that he convinced both countries to back off. 'I talked trade with them,' he said. India denies it. Pakistan agrees. Who's telling the truth? Hard to say. Perhaps none of them care. Each sticks to its own version. Last week, seven multi-party Indian delegations visited global capitals to explain Delhi's position. Many in the West are sympathetic to India's position — its long-standing concerns about cross-border terrorism and Pakistan's duplicity in dealing with extremist groups. They recognise the provocations India faces and the public pressure on Delhi to respond. Even so, some take India's account with a pinch of salt. Yes, Pakistan was complicit in the Pahalgam terror attack — but why didn't India go after the real perpetrators? Why not share intelligence? Why the secrecy, the social media bans, the coyness in accepting losses, and the reluctance to engage with the international media? Back home, a few seem interested. Most people are content with the version of events presented to them. Perhaps that's the point of a good narrative — to remove the burden of inquiry, so the prevailing storyline is accepted, repeated, and quietly folded into national pride. And therein lies the rub. Narratives are, by their very nature, misleading. They mix fact, half-truth, and convenient fiction to produce a favourable picture. In the end, they mostly convince only the teller. You can believe deterrence has been restored — but it means little if your adversary doesn't agree. The deeper challenge lies in coming to terms with Pakistan's strategic culture. As Christine Fair, Professor at Georgetown University and a keen Pakistan watcher, has long argued, the Pakistan Army operates with an insurgent mindset. It wins simply by not losing. It thrives on confrontation and political relevance. That makes it almost immune to traditional deterrence logic. This is what India must keep in mind. The next time there's a provocation from Pakistan — and there might well be another — New Delhi would do well to resist the urge for political signalling. It's this compulsive need to cater to public opinion and control the narrative that often gets us into trouble. Showing resolve is tricky because it casts restraint as weakness and risks turning action into theatre. The smarter course is to hold fire, stay alert, and choose response over optics. For that, it's important to retain the element of surprise. In the days following the start of the operation, Pakistan's military claimed it had anticipated an Indian strike and was lying in wait. While the details remain unclear, Islamabad suggested it had adopted a restrained posture until Indian aircraft reportedly struck what it described as civilian targets, after which Pakistani forces retaliated by targeting Indian jets. Whether this sequence played out exactly as claimed is open to question. It's also unclear if not targeting the Pakistan military in the opening salvo was a strategic misstep. Yet the broader point stands: Military action, meant more as political messaging, is a risky undertaking. Combat aimed mainly at signalling, not effect, is almost always a mistake. It's worth bearing in mind that in conflicts like the four-day engagement in May, narrative dominance is an illusion. The real contest is not about who speaks loudest, but who adapts, who endures, and who denies the adversary what it wants most: Relevance. The writer is a retired naval officer and strategic affairs commentator based in New Delhi
