US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the decision a "win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people" and said the men would "be in South Sudan" by Friday.
The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to be given a chance to tell officials that they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out.
The justices on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that their June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict."
The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order."
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
"The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs.
"Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan," Realmuto said.
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from Thursday's decision.
"Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the decision on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote.
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.
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 due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.
The judge's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti.
After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well.
'CLEAR REBUKE'
Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation.
"Today's decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration. This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach," White House David Warrington said on Thursday.
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 a chance to assert the harms they could face.
In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures."
The Justice Department said in a filing that the United States has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the migrants at issue will not be subject to torture.
The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it 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 as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
33 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
France's Industry Minister Says 10% Tariffs Not Good Deal for EU
French Industry Minister Marc Ferracci said agreeing to 10% tariffs on European exports to the US would be a bad deal, signaling disapproval of a potential compromise with Washington. The European Union has until July 9 to clinch a trade arrangement with Donald Trump before tariffs on nearly all exports to the US jump to 50%. Some members of the bloc are willing to accept a deal that includes keeping a 10% universal tariff on many of the bloc's exports, but with lower rates in certain sectors, Bloomberg reported earlier.
CNN
35 minutes ago
- CNN
This artist hopes to be chosen to make a sculpture for Trump's ‘Garden of American Heroes'
President Donald Trump hopes to create a new national monument called the "National Garden of American Heroes" that would include 250 statues and be unveiled in one year. CNN's Sunlen Serfaty speaks with an artist and a marble fabricator who admit the timeline maybe unrealistic but who still want to help make the vision a reality.
CNN
41 minutes ago
- CNN
America's tariff-driven buying spree leaves households saddled with debt and financially vulnerable
Washington CNN — Linda Wilburn, a 62-year-old retiree in Susanville, California, did not plan to buy a car this year. She originally wanted to save up, build her credit and buy a used car next year — a necessary purchase, she said. But President Donald Trump's tumultuous trade war drove her to buy a car this past April, fearing higher prices if she waited any longer. Now Wilburn has a $607 monthly car payment coming out of her $1,600 Social Security check, which she said is her only source of income. 'Things are so tight right now,' Wilburn told CNN. 'But the car was a necessity because of my oldest son's medical appointments.' As Trump waged a global trade war this past spring, many Americans raced to make major purchases — cars, electronics and furniture — trying to beat any potential price hikes caused by tariffs. That spending spree has left many with new debt and could weigh on consumer spending, which powers the US economy, in the months ahead. Retail sales surged in March as consumers drove up car sales, spurred on by tariffs targeting imported cars and auto parts, which went into effect in April and May, respectively. But those numbers have weakened since then, according to Commerce Department data, declining 0.9% in May in the steepest monthly decline in two years. Meanwhile, US household debt reached $18.2 trillion in the first three months of the year, a record high on data going back to 2004, as delinquencies marched higher, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. For families like Wilburn's, the spring's spending spree was a gamble against uncertainty —a bet that may now require years of careful budgeting to manage. 'Once I get everything level again, hopefully it will get easier, but I don't know,' Wilburn said. 'Now we can't really do anything for our enjoyment, like buy bird food for all the birds in the backyard.' Cutting back on spending Americans who are now saddled with new debt may pull back on their purchases. Economists say 'discretionary spending' — purchases that are not necessary for one's survival — is usually first on the chopping block. That includes eating out and traveling for leisure. A Bankrate survey of consumers' plans for discretionary spending showed that 54% of US adults said they expect to spend less on travel, dining out or entertainment this year, up from 49% who said the same last year. In May, retail spending at restaurants and bars fell 0.9%, the Commerce Department said, the first monthly decline since February and the steepest one since February 2023. Annika Wheelock, 28, and her family used a loan and a home equity line of credit to accelerate spending on more than $137,000 in purchases — including a new car, computers, a refrigerator and home repairs – to avoid any sticker shock from Trump's tariffs. With her husband returning to school this fall and their retirement contributions slashed, Wheelock, who works as a nurse, says her family is now living paycheck to paycheck. 'After making all these purchases, we're hunkering down and not planning on spending that much money, like we're not planning on going out and putting money back into the economy anytime soon,' she said. In March, a CreditKarma survey of more than 2,000 US adults showed that 51% of them said they changed their spending behavior in anticipation of Trump's tariffs, with 18% specifically saying the pulled forward major purchases. Feeling financially vulnerable as tariff-induced inflation looms Trump's tariffs are widely expected to eventually weigh on Americans through higher inflation, even those who front-loaded their big-ticket purchases. That means consumers who took part in the spring spending spree are left even more financially vulnerable. Henry Tuason, a 52-year-old school photographer from Los Angeles, said he spent nearly $50,000 earlier this year on a new laptop, television and a $45,000 Hyundai Tucson Hybrid to get ahead of the tariffs' impact. He said he's been on edge these days, worried his family could suddenly deal with an unexpected hardship. 'One day, when I went to go pick (my wife) up from work, people were driving very badly and I told her how picking her up is stressing me out because of this brand new car,' he said. 'She's gone back to taking the bus because to crash it prematurely would be very bad.' And it's not just being prepared for emergencies. If more Americans find themselves without a job or dealing with any financial hardship, that would further trigger a pullback in spending. 'Anytime you lose a job is bad, but it'd be much worse if me or my wife did nowadays, after everything we bought,' Tuason said. The unemployment rate remains at a low 4.2% for the third consecutive month in a row and employers are still demonstrating an appetite to hire. On Tuesday, the Labor Department reported that job openings unexpectedly rose in May to 7.7 million. However, entry-level hiring is down and Trump's chaotic trade war paralyzed some business decision-making. For now, Wall Street and economic policymakers are watching closely whether spending plummets after households stretched themselves to beat Trump's tariffs. 'As the tariffs kick in with price increases finally taking effect, that will be a hit to people's real income, their purchasing power, and because of that, you will see a slowing in consumer spending,' Jay Bryson, Wells Fargo's chief economist, told CNN. 'And that will also be because of that pull-forward in spending.'
