Latest news with #SoniaSotomayor
Irish Independent
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Donald Trump's officials accused of defying one in three judges who ruled against him
The findings, contained in a Washington Post analysis, suggest there is widespread non-compliance by the administration with America's legal system. Plaintiffs say Justice Department lawyers and the agencies they represent are snubbing rulings, providing false information, failing to turn over evidence, quietly working around court orders and inventing pretexts to carry out actions that have been blocked. Judges appointed by presidents of both parties have often agreed. None has taken punitive action to try to force compliance, however, allowing the administration's defiance of orders to go on for weeks or even months in some instances. Outside legal analysts say courts typically are slow to begin contempt proceedings for non-compliance, especially while their rulings are under appeal. Judges also are likely to be concerned, analysts say, that the US Marshals Service – whose director is appointed by the president – might not serve subpoenas or take recalcitrant government officials into custody if ordered to by the courts. The allegations against the administration are crystallised in a whistleblower complaint filed to Congress late last month that accused justice officials of ignoring court orders in immigration cases, presenting legal arguments with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts. Supreme Court justice Sonia Sotomayor also chided the administration, writing that Trump officials had 'openly flouted' a judge's order not to deport migrants to a country where they did not have citizenship. The Washington Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Mr Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programmes and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of those lawsuits. The Washington Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases – almost 35pc. Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary's role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and constitution. Immigration cases have emerged as the biggest flash point, but the administration has also been repeatedly accused of failing to comply in lawsuits involving cuts to federal funding and the workforce. Trump officials deny defying court orders, even as they accuse those who have issued them of 'judicial tyranny'. When the Supreme Court in June restricted the circumstances under which presidential policies could be halted nationwide while they are challenged in court, Mr Trump hailed the ruling as halting what he called a 'colossal abuse of power'. 'We've seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,' Mr Trump said, falsely portraying the judges who have ruled against him as being solely Democrats. Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the summer of 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered then president Richard Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. Mr Nixon initially refused, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis, but ultimately complied. 'The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,' Mr Michel said. 'We're in new territory.' Questions about whether the administration is defying judges have bubbled since early in Mr Trump's second term, when the Supreme Court said he must allow billions of dollars in already allocated foreign aid to flow. Two months after a federal court had temporarily blocked Mr Trump's freeze on the congressionally approved foreign aid, an attorney for relief organisations said that the government had taken 'literally zero steps to allocate this money'. Judge Amir Ali, a Joe Biden appointee, has ordered the administration to explain what it is doing to comply with the order. (© Washington Post)
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Trump officials accused of defying 1 in 3 judges who ruled against him
Outside legal analysts say courts typically are slow to begin contempt proceedings for noncompliance, especially while their rulings are under appeal. Judges also are likely to be concerned, analysts say, that the U.S. Marshals Service - whose director is appointed by the president - might not serve subpoenas or take recalcitrant government officials into custody if ordered to by the courts. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The allegations against the administration are crystallized in a whistleblower complaint filed to Congress late last month that accused Justice officials of ignoring court orders in immigration cases, presenting legal arguments with no basis in the law and misrepresenting facts. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor also chided the administration, writing that Trump officials had 'openly flouted' a judge's order not to deport migrants to a country where they did not have citizenship. Advertisement The Post examined 337 lawsuits filed against the administration since Trump returned to the White House and began a rapid-fire effort to reshape government programs and policy. As of mid-July, courts had ruled against the administration in 165 of the lawsuits. The Post found that the administration is accused of defying or frustrating court oversight in 57 of those cases - almost 35 percent. Advertisement Legal experts said the pattern of conduct is unprecedented for any presidential administration and threatens to undermine the judiciary's role as a check on an executive branch asserting vast powers that test the boundaries of the law and Constitution. Immigration cases have emerged as the biggest flash point, but the administration has also repeatedly been accused of failing to comply in lawsuits involving cuts to federal funding and the workforce. Trump officials deny defying court orders, even as they accuse those who have issued them of 'judicial tyranny.' When the Supreme Court in June restricted the circumstances under which presidential policies could be halted nationwide while they are challenged in court, Trump hailed the ruling as halting a 'colossal abuse of power.' 'We've seen a handful of radical left judges try to overrule the rightful powers of the president,' Trump said, falsely portraying the judges who have ruled against him as being solely Democrats. His point was echoed Monday by White House spokesman Harrison Fields, who attacked judges who have ruled against the president as 'leftist' and said the president's attorneys 'are working tirelessly to comply' with rulings. 'If not for the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Judicial Branch would collapse into a kangaroo court,' Fields said in a statement. Retired federal judge and former Watergate special prosecutor Paul Michel compared the situation to the summer of 1974, when the Supreme Court ordered President Richard M. Nixon to turn over Oval Office recordings as part of the Watergate investigation. Nixon initially refused, prompting fears of a constitutional crisis, but ultimately complied. Advertisement 'The current challenge is even bigger and more complicated because it involves hundreds of actions, not one subpoena for a set of tapes,' Michel said. 'We're in new territory.' Deportations and defiance Questions about whether the administration is defying judges have bubbled since early in Trump's second term, when the Supreme Court said Trump must allow millions in already allocated foreign aid to flow. The questions intensified in several immigration cases, including high-profile showdowns over the wrongful deportation of an undocumented immigrant who came to the United States as a teenager and was raising a family in Maryland. The Supreme Court ordered the government to 'facilitate' Kilmar Abrego García's return after officials admitted deporting him to a notorious prison in his native El Salvador despite a court order forbidding his removal to that country. Abrego remained there for almost two months, with the administration saying there was little it could do because he was under control of a foreign power. In June, he was brought back to the United States in federal custody after prosecutors secured a grand jury indictment against him for human smuggling, based in large part on the testimony of a three-time felon who got leniency in exchange for cooperation. And recent filings in the case reveal that El Salvador told the United Nations that the U.S. retained control over prisoners sent there. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, one of Abrego's lawyers, said the events prove the administration was 'playing games with the court all along.' Advertisement Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago law professor, said the case is 'the sharpest example of a pattern that's observed across many of the cases that we've seen being filed against the Trump administration, in which orders that come from lower courts are either being slow-walked or not being complied with in good faith.' In another legal clash, Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg found Trump officials engaged in 'willful disregard' of his order to turn around deportation flights to El Salvador in mid-March after he issued a temporary restraining order against removing migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, which in the past had been used only in wartime. A whistleblower complaint filed by fired Justice Department attorney Erez Reuveni alleges that Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove told staffers before the flights that a judge might try to block them - and that it might be necessary to tell a court 'f--- you' and ignore the order. Bove, who has since been nominated by Trump for an appellate judgeship and is awaiting Senate confirmation, denies the allegations. In May, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher, a Trump appointee, opined that the government had 'utterly disregarded' her order to facilitate the return of a Venezuelan man who was also wrongfully deported to El Salvador. Like Boasberg, who was appointed by Obama, she is exploring contempt proceedings. Another federal judge found Trump officials violated his court order by attempting to send deportees to South Sudan without due process. In a fourth case, authorities deported a man shortly after an appeals court ruled he should remain in the U.S. while his immigration case played out. Trump officials said the removal was an error but have yet to return him. Advertisement One of the most glaring examples of noncompliance involves a program to provide legal representation to minors who arrived at the border alone, often fearing for their safety after fleeing countries racked by gang violence. In April, U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín, a Biden appointee, ordered the Trump administration to fund the program. The government delayed almost four weeks and moved to cancel a contract the judge had ordered restarted. While the money was held up, a 17-year-old was sent back to Honduras before he could meet with a lawyer. Attorneys told the court that the teen probably could have won a reprieve with a simple legal filing. Alvaro Huerta, an attorney representing the plaintiffs in a suit over the funding cuts, said other minors might have suffered the same fate. 'Had they been complying with the temporary restraining order, this child would have been represented,' Huerta said. Gaslighting the court Another problematic case involves the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency created after the 2008 financial crisis to police unfair, abusive or deceptive practices by financial institutions. A judge halted the administration's plans to fire almost all CFPB employees, ruling the effort was unlawful. An appeals court said workers could be let go only if the bureau performed an 'individualized' or 'particularized' assessment. Four business days later, the Trump administration reported that it had carried out a 'particularized assessment' of more than 1,400 employees - and began an even bigger round of layoffs. CFPB employees said in court filings that the process was a sham directed by Elon Musk's U.S. DOGE Service. Employees said counsel for the White House Office of Management and Budget told them to brush off the court's required particularized assessment and simply meet the layoff quota. Advertisement 'All that mattered was the numbers,' said one declaration submitted to U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson, an Obama appointee. Jackson halted the new firings, accusing the Trump administration of 'dressing' its cuts in 'new clothes.' David Super, a Georgetown law professor, said the government has used the same legal maneuver in a number of cases. 'They put out a directive that gets challenged,' Super said. 'Then they do the same thing that the directive set out to do but say it's on some other legal basis.' He pointed to January, when OMB issued a memo freezing all federal grants and loans. Affected groups won an injunction. The White House quickly announced it was rescinding the memo but keeping the freeze in place. Justice Department attorneys argued in legal filings that the government's action rendered the injunction moot, but the judge said it appeared it had been done 'simply to defeat the jurisdiction of the courts.' In another case, a judge blocked the administration from ending federal funds for programs that promote 'gender ideology,' or the idea that someone might identify with a gender other than their birth sex, while the effort was challenged in court. The National Institutes of Health nevertheless slashed a grant for a doctor at Seattle Children's Hospital who was developing a health education tool for transgender youth. The plaintiffs complained it was a violation of the court order, but the NIH said the grant was being cut under a different authority. Whistleblowers came forward with documents showing that the administration had apparently carried out the cuts under the executive order that was at the center of the court case. U.S. District Judge Lauren King, a Biden appointee, said the documents 'have raised substantial questions' about whether the government violated her preliminary injunction and ordered officials to produce documents. The government eventually reinstated the grant. In a different case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes, a Biden appointee, was unsparing in her decision to place a hold on the Trump's administration's ban on transgender people serving in the military, saying the order was 'soaked in animus.' Then the government issued a new policy targeting troops who have symptoms of 'gender dysphoria,' the term for people who feel a mismatch between their gender identity and birth sex, and asked Reyes to dissolve her order. Reyes was stunned. Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth had made repeated public statements describing the policy as a ban on transgender troops. Hegseth had recently posted on X: 'Pentagon says transgender troops are disqualified from service without an exemption.' 'I am not going to abide by government officials saying one thing to the public - what they really mean to the public - and coming in here to the court and telling me something different, like I'm an idiot,' the judge told the government's lawyer. 'The court is not going to be gaslit.' Courts have traditionally assumed public officials, and the Justice Department in particular, are acting honestly, lawfully and in good faith. Since Trump returned to the White House, however, judges have increasingly questioned whether government lawyers are meeting that standard. 'The pattern of stuff we have … I haven't seen before,' said Andrew C. McCarthy, a columnist for the conservative National Review and a former federal prosecutor. 'The rules of the road are supposed to be you can tell a judge, 'I can't answer that for constitutional reasons,' or you can tell the judge the truth.' A struggle for accountability While many judges have concluded that the Trump administration has defied court orders, only Boasberg has actively moved toward sanctioning the administration for its conduct. And he did so only after saying he had given the government 'ample opportunity' to address its failure to return the deportation flights to El Salvador. The contempt proceedings he began were paused by an appeals court panel without explanation three months ago. The two judges who voted for the administrative stay were Trump appointees. On Friday, the Trump administration brokered a deal with El Salvador and Venezuela to send the Venezuelan deportees at the heart of Boasberg's case back to their homeland, further removing them from the reach of U.S. courts. A contempt finding would allow the judge to impose fines, jail time or additional sanctions on officials to compel compliance. In three other cases, judges have denied motions to hold Trump officials in contempt, but reiterated that the government must comply with a decision, or ordered the administration to turn over documents to determine whether it had violated a ruling. Judges are considering contempt proceedings in other cases as well. Most lawsuits against the administration have been filed in federal court districts with a heavy concentration of judges appointed by Democratic presidents. The vast majority of judges who have found the administration defied court orders were appointed by Democrats, but judges selected by Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush have also found that officials failed to comply with orders. Most notably, at least two Trump picks have raised questions about whether officials have met their obligations to courts. Legal experts said the slow pace of efforts to enforce court orders is not surprising. The judicial system moves methodically, and judges typically ratchet up efforts to gain compliance in small increments. They said there is also probably another factor at work that makes it especially difficult to hold the administration to account. 'The courts can't enforce their own rulings - that has to be done by the executive branch,' said Michel, the former judge and Watergate special prosecutor. He was referring to U.S. Marshals, the executive branch law enforcement personnel who carry out court orders related to contempt proceedings, whether that is serving subpoenas or arresting officials whom a judge has ordered jailed for not complying. Former judges and other legal experts said judges might be calculating that a confrontation over contempt proceedings could result in the administration ordering marshals to defy the courts. That type of standoff could significantly undermine the authority of judges. The Supreme Court's June decision to scale back the ability of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions, and the administration's success at persuading the justices to overturn about a dozen temporary blocks on its agenda in recent months, might only embolden Trump officials to defy lower courts, several legal experts said. Sotomayor echoed that concern in a recent dissent when she accused the high court of 'rewarding lawlessness' by allowing Trump officials to deport migrants to countries that are not their homelands. The conservative majority gave the green light, she noted, after Trump officials twice carried out deportations despite lower court orders blocking the moves. '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.' Two months after a federal court temporarily blocked Trump's freeze on billions in congressionally approved foreign aid, an attorney for relief organizations said the government had taken 'literally zero steps to allocate this money.' Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, has ordered the administration to explain what it is doing to comply with the order. Trump officials have said they will eventually release the funds, but aid groups worry the administration is simply trying to delay until the allocations expire in the fall. Meanwhile, about 66,000 tons of food aid is in danger of rotting in warehouses, AIDS cases are forecast to spike in Africa and the government projected the cuts would result in 200,000 more cases of paralysis caused by polio each year. Already, children are dying unnecessarily in Sudan. Such situations have prompted some former judges to do something most generally do not - speak out. More than two dozen retired judges appointed by Republican and Democratic presidents have formed the Article III Coalition to push back on attacks and misinformation about the courts. Robert J. Cindrich, who helped found the group, said the country is not yet in a constitutional crisis but that the strain on the courts is immense. Citing the administration's response to orders, as well as its attacks on judges and law firms, Cindrich said, 'The judiciary is being put under siege.'
The Hill
5 days ago
- Politics
- The Hill
The Supreme Court is trying to erase my transgender sister. I won't let it happen.
The Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of upholding Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming care for trans youth. With this ruling, the court opens the door for more states to cut off life-saving medical care — care that is backed by every major medical association, and that has been shown to unequivocally improve the health and well-being of gender diverse, transgender and nonbinary youth. As dissenting Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned, this puts transgender youth and their families at the mercy of political whims. This issue hits especially close to home for me, as almost exactly a year ago my younger sister came out as transgender. Watching her grow into herself has been such a joy — from painting her nails for the first time and texting TikTok makeup tutorials back and forth to giving her advice as she navigates online dating and teaching her to style her new, long hair. When I was younger, I always wished for a sister. I just didn't realize it meant that one day I'd have to share my mom's jewelry and handbag collection (something I'm still coming to terms with). But it hasn't all been joyful. My sister hasn't been able to update her passport to reflect her new identity. She has been hesitant to fly to Florida to visit our grandma, out of fear for her safety. She is worried that one day her doctor will have to stop providing care or that insurance will no longer cover the costs. That fear — of being harassed, denied care, or worse — is a fear that has only been further validated by this ruling. Growing up, my sister went to school with Chief Justice John Roberts's kids, and for some time, they were her closest friends. She played in their yard and watched movies on their couch. John Roberts introduced my sister to root beer, which to this day is still her favorite soda. We knew the Roberts family during an era when politics felt like something you could keep separate from everyday life. We're far beyond that now. The decisions being made by the court aren't just political — they're deeply personal, and they're dangerous. And while the court hands down rulings rooted in fear, bigotry and rigidity, my 95-year-old grandmother, who immigrated to the U.S. from Chile over 60 years ago — a woman who is quite literally from another century — is learning and evolving in real time. She now uses my sister's chosen name and pronouns with more grace and consistency than many people half her age. Sure, sometimes she still calls my sister 'he,' but she also mistakenly calls me 'Poppy,' the name of our family dog, who is arguably the favorite grandchild. After Trump's re-election, my family found itself having impossible conversations. I'm half British on my dad's side, and for a while, we told ourselves that if things got too dangerous here, my sister could go to England. But the truth is, England's not safe either. Regressive legislation in the U.K. has increasingly restricted gender-affirming care and fueled a vicious media campaign against trans people, one that is funded by my sister's favorite childhood author, JK Rowling. The irony is that Chile, the country my grandmother emigrated from, may now be safer for her transgender granddaughter than the U.S. or the U.K. It's hard to ignore the hypocrisy: many in this country hate immigrants, yet they create unlivable conditions that force its own citizens — especially queer and transgender people, especially non-white people — to flee. The U.S. has spent decades destabilizing governments across the world, including Chile, and now it's turning on its own children. It's pushing people like my sister out of public life, forcing them back into the closet and locking the door. We're privileged even to consider leaving. So many can't. But I won't. I'm staying, as is my sister, both of us fueled by anger. I'm staying because my sister deserves to feel joy and safety and autonomy here, in the country she calls home. I'm staying because we need people who are willing to fight, to testify, to tell the truth even when the courts won't listen. And because some of the fiercest advocates I've had the privilege of meeting through this work — people who've taught me how to show up better, louder, more radical — are young, queer and transgender folks from the South who have been fighting the worst kinds of legislation with unimaginable strength and determination. The other day, I told my sister I was tired. Working in reproductive justice and immigration advocacy, I feel like I am always in flight or fight mode. I joked that in another timeline, I'd be a cute monkey on a beach eating mangoes, minding my business. She laughed and said that in another timeline, she wishes she'd been born cisgender. My heart broke. This country makes it so hard to exist as herself; it shouldn't require this much bravery just to be. The attacks on our communities are relentless. Every day, we are slowly losing our reproductive rights, bodily autonomy, and our ability to decide if, when and how to create our families. The road ahead will be long and grueling, but we are not powerless. We can and will fight back because we've been left with no other choice. And because, as my favorite quote from author Mariame Kaba reminds me, 'Hope is a discipline.'
Yahoo
5 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump can send deportees to South Sudan and other third-party countries, Supreme Court says
The Supreme Court will allow Donald Trump's administration to deport immigrants to nations other than their home countries, paving the way for the government to rapidly remove people from the United States to places where they have no ties whatsoever, including war-torn nations such as Libya and South Sudan. Justices on Monday issued a 6-3 decision granting Trump's emergency request to overturn a federal judge's restrictions on those removals, lifting a nationwide injunction that required the government to give criminal deportees 'meaningful' notice to raise objections to their removal to countries where they could face torture or death. The justices did not explain their decision. All three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing a lengthy opinion blasting the conservative majority's 'abuse' of the court's authority to consider yet another emergency request from the president. The court is 'rewarding lawlessness,' she said. Administration officials quickly celebrated the ruling. 'Fire up the deportation planes,' Department of Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin wrote on X. Homeland Security Secretary Kristie Noem posted a GIF of Trump dancing. Last month, Massachusetts District Judge Brian Murphy reprimanded government attorneys and administration officials after a group of deportees with criminal convictions held in federal custody were abruptly notified that they would be deported to South Sudan. Trump's own State Department reports South Sudan is plagued by slavery, kidnapping, sexual abuse, torture and extrajudicial killings. The judge has also suggested he could hold officials in criminal contempt for defying his court orders. 'By rewarding lawlessness, the Court once again undermines' due process, Sotomayor wrote. 'Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility' that a federal just exceeded its authority by ordering the government 'to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled,' she added. 'That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable,' Sotomayor wrote. Murphy had allowed the government — by its own request — to hold those deportees overseas, in U.S. custody, while giving them a chance to receive a 'reasonable fear interview' to explain how they would face persecution or torture in South Sudan. They are currently being held on a military base in Djibouti pending a court order to remove them to the war-torn African nation. But, after government attorneys complained about conditions at the U.S. facility in Djibouti, the administration seemed to have 'changed their tune,' Murphy wrote in court filings. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome' than the administration anticipated, he said. He accused administration officials of 'manufacturing chaos.' According to a top immigration official, a group of immigration officers and the immigrants in their custody are stuck in the small east African country, plagued by smog from burn pits with human waste, at risk of malaria, and taking a dozen medications to battle chronic respiratory illness. The judge did not order the government to offload those immigrants in Djibouti, but the Trump administration accused Murphy of 'stranding' ICE agents there. Following the Supreme Court's order, lawyers for the deportees currently in Djibouti filed an emergency request to Judge Murphy to 'preserve and protect their statutory, regulatory, and due process rights to seek protection from torture in South Sudan,' a 'volatile country where they likely will face indefinite detention and other forms of torture.' Murphy, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, has faced a barrage of attacks from the White House, which labeled him a 'far-left activist' who is trying to 'protect the violent criminal illegal immigrants.' Trump called him 'absolutely out of control' and accused him of 'hurting our country.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
US supreme court clears way for deportations of eight men to South Sudan
The supreme court has allowed the Trump administration to deport the eight men who have been held for weeks at an American military base in Djibouti to war-torn South Sudan, a country where almost none of them have ties. 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 Solve the daily Crossword
