Latest news with #SouthSudan-destined
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Politics
- 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.
The Star
9 hours ago
- Politics
- The Star
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
(Reuters) -The U.S. 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 harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The justices lifted a judicial order that required the government to give migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" a "meaningful opportunity" to tell 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 brief order was unsigned and came with no reasoning, as is common when the court decides emergency requests. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, criticized the majority's decision, calling it a "gross abuse" of the court's discretion. "Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung 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. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." 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. Murphy on May 21 found that the administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned against any travel "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, although U.S. officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese, while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. Reuters also reported that officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees. Murphy clarified that any removals without offering a chance to object would violate his order. As part of its pattern of assailing various judges who have taken actions to impede Trump policies challenged as unlawful, the White House in a statement called Murphy "a far-left activist judge." The administration, in its May 27 emergency filing to the Supreme Court, said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. A FLOOD OF CASES The dispute is the latest of many cases involving legal challenges to various Trump policies including immigration to have already 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, in April faulted the administration's treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under 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. 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." Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, U.S. authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance. 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 Constitution. Murphy said that the Supreme Court, Congress, "common sense" and "basic decency" all require migrants to be given adequate due process. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. In his order concerning the flight to South Sudan, Murphy also clarified that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. 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. (Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York and John Kruzel in Washington; Editing by Will Dunham)
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Supreme Court lifts limits on Trump deporting migrants to countries not their own
By Andrew Chung (Reuters) -The U.S. 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 harms they could face, handing him another victory in his aggressive pursuit of mass deportations. The justices lifted a judicial order that required the government to give migrants set for deportation to so-called "third countries" a "meaningful opportunity" to tell 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 brief order was unsigned and came with no reasoning, as is common when the court decides emergency requests. In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by the court's two other liberal justices, criticized the majority's decision, calling it a "gross abuse" of the court's discretion. "Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung 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. "That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable." 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. Murphy on May 21 found that the administration had violated his order mandating further procedures in trying to send a group of migrants to politically unstable South Sudan, a country that the U.S. State Department has warned against any travel "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, although U.S. officials later said one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his home country. Of the other passengers who were on the flight, one is South Sudanese, while the others are from Cuba, Mexico, Laos and Vietnam. Reuters also reported that officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite previous U.S. condemnation of Libya's harsh treatment of detainees. Murphy clarified that any removals without offering a chance to object would violate his order. As part of its pattern of assailing various judges who have taken actions to impede Trump policies challenged as unlawful, the White House in a statement called Murphy "a far-left activist judge." The administration, in its May 27 emergency filing to the Supreme Court, said that all the South Sudan-destined migrants had committed "heinous crimes" in the United States including murder, arson and armed robbery. A FLOOD OF CASES The dispute is the latest of many cases involving legal challenges to various Trump policies including immigration to have already 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, in April faulted the administration's treatment of some targeted migrants as inadequate under 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. 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." Without such assurance, if the migrant expresses fear of removal to that country, U.S. authorities would assess the likelihood of persecution or torture, possibly referring the person to an immigration court, according to the guidance. 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 Constitution. Murphy said that the Supreme Court, Congress, "common sense" and "basic decency" all require migrants to be given adequate due process. The Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 16 declined to put Murphy's decision on hold. In his order concerning the flight to South Sudan, Murphy also clarified that non-citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety. 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.
