Latest news with #UnitedNationsConventionAgainstTorture
Vox
a day ago
- Politics
- Vox
Trump asks the Supreme Court to neutralize the Convention Against Torture
is a senior correspondent at Vox, where he focuses on the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and the decline of liberal democracy in the United States. He received a JD from Duke University and is the author of two books on the Supreme Court. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Justice Brett Kavanaugh before delivering the State of the Union address at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, on February 5, 2019. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images Federal law states that the United States shall not 'expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.' This law implements a treaty, known as the Convention Against Torture, which the United States ratified more than three decades ago. Federal regulations, moreover, provide that even after an immigration judge has determined that a noncitizen may be deported to another country, that judge's order 'shall not be executed in circumstances that would violate Article 3 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture.' And those regulations also establish a process that immigrants can use to raise concerns with an immigration judge that they may be tortured if sent to a specific country. SCOTUS, Explained Get the latest developments on the US Supreme Court from senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. The Trump administration, however, claims it has discovered a loophole that renders all of these legal protections worthless, and is now asking the Supreme Court to explicitly give it the authority to make use of that loophole in order to enact its immigration policies. According to President Donald Trump's lawyers, the administration can simply wait until after an immigration judge has conducted the proceeding that ordinarily would determine whether a particular noncitizen may be deported to a particular country, and then, if that noncitizen is allowed to be deported, announce that the immigrant will be deported to some previously unmentioned country — even if that immigrant reasonably fears they will be tortured in that nation. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D., the case where the Trump administration asks the justices to neutralize the Convention Against Torture, is unlike some of the more high-profile deportation cases that reached the Supreme Court — such as the unlawful deportation of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to El Salvador — in that no one really questions that the immigrants at the heart of this case may be deported somewhere. D.V.D. involves immigrants who have gone through the ordinary process to determine whether they can be removed from the country. The Trump administration even claims that some of them were convicted of very serious crimes. According to the administration, 'all were adjudicated removable.' But the Convention Against Torture and the federal law implementing it forbid the government from deporting anyone to a country where there is good reason to believe they will be tortured. And federal immigration law and regulations lay out the process that should be used to determine if an immigrant may be deported to a particular country. How immigration hearings are supposed to work As the district judge who heard this case explained in his opinion ruling that Trump must comply with the Convention Against Torture, when the government wishes to deport a noncitizen, that individual is typically entitled to a hearing before an immigration judge. That hearing determines 'not only whether an individual may be removed from the United States but also to where he may be removed.' In these proceedings, the immigrant is given an opportunity to name where they want to be deported to, if the immigration judge determines that they should be removed. If the immigrant does not do so, or if the United States cannot deport them to their designated country, federal law lays out where they may be sent. The United States may deport someone to a country where they have no ties only as a last resort, and only if that nation's government 'will accept the alien into that country.' The immigration judge will generally inform the noncitizen which nations they could potentially be sent to, giving that noncitizen an opportunity to raise any concerns that they may be tortured if sent to a particular country. The immigration judge will then decide whether those concerns are sufficiently serious to prohibit the United States from sending the immigrant to that particular country. The D.V.D. case concerns noncitizens who have been through this process. In many cases, an immigration judge determined that they could not be deported to a particular country. According to the immigrants' lawyers, for example, one of their clients is a Honduran woman. An immigration judge determined that she cannot be sent back to Honduras because her husband 'severely beat her and the children after his release from prison' and she fears that he would find her and abuse her again. And that brings us to the loophole that Trump's lawyers claim he can exploit to bypass the Convention Against Torture. Related The Supreme Court signals it might be losing patience with Trump Ordinarily, if the government wants to deport someone to a country that did not come up during their hearing before an immigration judge, it can reopen the process. The government will inform the immigrant where it wishes to deport them. The immigrant will again have the opportunity to object if they fear being tortured, and an immigration officer and, eventually, an immigration judge, will determine if this fear is credible. But the Trump administration claims it can bypass this process. If a country 'has provided diplomatic assurances that aliens removed from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured,' the Trump administration claims it can deport people to that country 'without the need for further procedures.' In other cases, it claims that it can give the immigrant such a brief period of time to raise an objection that it would be exceedingly difficult for them to find legal counsel, much less compile enough evidence to show that their fears are justified. So Trump's lawyers claim that the government can wait until after a noncitizen has received a hearing before an immigration judge, and only then reveal where it intends to send that noncitizen — even if that country is one of the most dangerous locations on Earth. And the immigrant may receive no process whatsoever after they learn about this decision. Can Trump actually deny due process to people who might be tortured? Recently, in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (2025), the Supreme Court ruled that a different group of immigrants that Trump hoped to deport without due process 'must receive notice…that they are subject to removal…within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek' relief from a federal court. The district judge that heard the D.V.D. case determined that a similar rule should apply to noncitizens the Trump administration wants to deport to a surprise third country. The Trump administration, however, primarily argues that three provisions of federal law governing which courts are allowed to hear immigration disputes mean that the district judge lacked jurisdiction to hear the D.V.D. case in the first place. One of these provisions generally forbids federal courts from second-guessing the government's decision to bring a removal proceeding against a particular immigrant. It also typically prohibits judges from intervening in the government's decision to execute an existing removal order once that order has been handed down by an immigration judge. But, as the district judge explained, the D.V.D. plaintiffs do not challenge the government's 'discretionary decisions to execute their removal orders.' Nor do they 'challenge their removability.' They merely challenge the government's decision to bypass the ordinary process it must use to obtain an order permitting an immigrant to be deported to a specific country. The other two provisions, meanwhile, largely govern the appeals process that immigrants may use if they lose a case before an immigration judge. Such cases are typically appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and then to a federal circuit court, not the district court that heard the D.V.D. case. But, again, the D.V.D. plaintiffs do not seek to appeal an immigration judge's decision. They object to the Trump administration's refusal to bring them before an immigration judge in the first place. Trump's lawyers, moreover, are quite candid about what it means if the Supreme Court accepts these jurisdictional arguments. 'To the extent an action does not fit' within their proposed process, they argue, 'the result is that judicial review is not available.' So, if Trump prevails, many of the immigrants he hopes to target will not have any recourse in any court.
Yahoo
27-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Judge accuses Trump administration of creating chaos for migrants held in Djibouti
A federal judge, in his latest finding that immigrant detainees the US intended to send to South Sudan aren't being given due process, told the Trump administration he believes it is manufacturing chaos and trying to evade court orders. The latest written order from Judge Brian Murphy of the District Court in Massachusetts comes after the Trump administration asked the judge to revisit an earlier ruling he made that would have allowed the detainees more proceedings to object to their deportation. Fewer than 10 migrants are being held in US custody at a military base in Djibouti, according to the Trump administration. The judge on Monday said he wouldn't reconsider or delay an earlier ruling, which he noted Justice Department lawyers had helped him shape, on giving the detainees some due process proceedings while they are held there. 'It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than Defendants anticipated. However, the Court never said that Defendants had to convert their foreign military base into an immigration facility; it only left that as an option, again, at Defendants' request,' Murphy wrote in a 17-page order issued Monday night. 'From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite lack of clarity as a means of evasion.' Murphy, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, is considering potentially holding administration officials in contempt of court for violation of his orders, in one of the latest major clashes between a judge and the Trump administration over immigration and due process. CNN reached out to the Department of Homeland Security about the judge's latest order but did not receive an immediate response. Lawyers for the migrants first filed the case in late March, alleging that the Trump administration was removing migrants from the US to third countries without providing them the opportunity to show they were at 'risk of persecution or torture' there. The court said the government cannot send a noncitizen 'to a country where they are likely to be tortured' under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The court battle prompted Murphy's emergency intervention this month, when some detainees were told they were being sent to South Sudan, a country on the cusp of another civil war. Fewer than 17 hours later, they were put on a plane and flown out of the US. The detainees had essentially no opportunity to reach their lawyers or families, nor did they have 'meaningful opportunity … to present fear-based claims,' the judge found on Monday. Murphy acknowledged the migrants had criminal histories but said 'that does not change due process.' He added in the order on Monday that he has refrained from issuing orders that would micromanage the executive branch's agencies. Last week, Murphy had ordered the Trump administration '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.'
RTÉ News
23-05-2025
- Politics
- RTÉ News
Migrants deported from US to South Sudan held in Djibouti
A group of migrants deported from the United States towards conflict-torn South Sudan will be held for now in Djibouti after a court ruling, the Trump administration lamented. The US government claims it expelled the eight migrants from a range of nations due to their past convictions for violent crimes. The migrants left the United States on a flight Tuesday bound for South Sudan instead of their nations of origin, after the US failed to obtain approval from their respective governments to take them back. They are currently detained by the Department of Homeland Security in Djibouti, where there is a major US military base. US District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston ruled Wednesday evening that the Trump administration had violated one of his previous orders, calling the timeframe given for the migrants to contest their expulsions to South Sudan "plainly insufficient." South Sudan, an impoverished nation which has long grappled with insecurity and political instability, has an advisory against travel from the US State Department. In his ruling, Judge Murphy said that migrants had to receive greater notice and at least ten days to appeal the decision, as required by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. He also ruled that six of the migrants were entitled to invoke, with the aid of a lawyer, their "fear" of torture or ill-treatment in the third country. Additionally, if the Department of Homeland Security deemed the fear unfounded, it still needed to grant at least 15 days to appeal the expulsion procedure. Mr Trump took to his Truth Social platform to decry Judge Murphy's order, saying he "has ordered that EIGHT of the most violent criminals on Earth curtail their journey to South Sudan, and instead remain in Djibouti." "He would not allow these monsters to proceed to their final destination," he continued, claiming that the courts are "absolutely out of control." While the government said those scheduled for expulsion had ample warning, lawyers for two of the deportees said in court filings that their clients only learned the night before or on Tuesday, when the flight left. For their part, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said that South Sudan was not the "final destination" for the migrants.
The Hindu
23-05-2025
- Politics
- The Hindu
Migrants deported from U.S. to South Sudan held in Djibouti, in a U.S. military base
A group of migrants deported from the United States towards conflict-torn South Sudan will be held for now in Djibouti after a court ruling, the Trump administration lamented on Thursday (May 22, 2025). The U.S. government claims it expelled the eight migrants from a range of nations due to their past convictions for violent crimes. The migrants left the United States on a flight on Tuesday bound for South Sudan instead of their nations of origin, after Washington failed to obtain approval from their respective governments to take them back. They are currently detained by the Department of Homeland Security in Djibouti, where there is a major U.S. military base. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston ruled on Wednesday evening that the Trump administration had violated one of his previous orders, calling the timeframe given for the migrants to contest their expulsions to South Sudan "plainly insufficient." South Sudan, an impoverished nation which has long grappled with insecurity and political instability, has an advisory against travel from the U.S. State Department. In his ruling, Murphy said that migrants had to receive greater notice and at least ten days to appeal the decision, as required by the United Nations Convention Against Torture. He also ruled that six of the migrants were entitled to invoke, with the aid of a lawyer, their "fear" of torture or ill-treatment in the third country. And if the Department of Homeland Security deemed the fear unfounded, it still needed to grant at least 15 days to appeal the expulsion procedure. Mr. Trump took to his Truth Social platform on Thursday to decry Murphy's order, saying he "has ordered that EIGHT of the most violent criminals on Earth curtail their journey to South Sudan, and instead remain in Djibouti." "He would not allow these monsters to proceed to their final destination," he continued, claiming that the courts are "absolutely out of control." The White House identified the eight men as two citizens of Myanmar, two Cubans, a Vietnamese man, a Laotian, a Mexican and a South Sudanese citizen. While the government said those scheduled for expulsion had ample warning, lawyers for the Vietnamese national and one citizen of Myanmar said in court filings that their clients only learned the night before or on Tuesday, when the flight left. For their part, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said Wednesday that South Sudan was not the "final destination" for the migrants.
Yahoo
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Judge: DHS violated court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan
May 21 (UPI) -- The Trump administration violated a previous court order when it deported at least six migrants to South Sudan without providing them an opportunity to challenge their removal to a country where they could be tortured, persecuted or killed, a judge ruled Wednesday. The migrants were loaded onto a plane on Tuesday and flown to South Sudan less than 24 hours after receiving notice of their removal and without an opportunity to assert claims for protection under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. The U.S. State Department warns American against traveling to South Sudan due to "crime, kidnapping and armed conflict." Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District of Massachusetts issued his order Wednesday in a case filed in March challenging the Trump administration policy of sending migrants to a country that is not their own without prior notice and a meaningful opportunity to contest their removal on the basis of fear of persecution, torture or death. Late Tuesday, in response to an emergency order filed by the migrants' attorneys seeking to prevent their clients' rushed removal, Murphy warned the Trump administration against deporting them and ordered it to maintain custody of the migrants if they had already left the United States. In his ruling Wednesday, Murphy, an appointee of President Joe Biden, admonished the Trump administration over the deportations, stopping just short of accusing it of willfully ignoring his previous preliminary injunction. "Defendants maintain that ambiguity in the phrase 'meaningful opportunity' precipitated this controversy. Indeed, when the Court issued the Preliminary Injunction, it declined to elaborate on what constitutes a 'meaningful opportunity,' preferring instead to let experience show through hard cases the finer points of what is required under the Due Process Clause," he wrote. "To be clear, this is not one of those hard cases." The migrants were given less than 24 hours' notice of their removal, zero business hours' notice, language barriers were present, anda lack of information and attorneys' inability to access their clients confirm for the court that "no reasonable interpretation of the Court's Preliminary Injunction could endorse yesterday's events," he wrote. To remedy violating the preliminary injunction, Murphy ordered the Trump administration to give each of the six migrants what is called a reasonable fear interview in private with legal counsel of their choosing. The legal counsel must be commensurate with what they would have had access to in the United States and the migrant and their representative must be given at least 72 hours' notice of each scheduled interview. If the migrants' claim does not meet the Department of Homeland Securities' threshold of a "reasonable fear," they must be provided with at least 15 days to try to reopen immigration proceedings to challenge their removal, during which they must remain in DHS custody, the remedy order states The DHS, the order continues, may choose to conduct the process in South Sudan or return them to the United States. "The Court cautions Defendants that this remedy should not be construed as setting forth a course of conduct that would constitute compliance with the Preliminary Injunction, and the Court is not -- in ordering this remedy -- making any findings or conclusions that compliance with these processes before deportation would have satisfied the requirements of its Preliminary Injunction in the first instance," Murphy warned. Because of the Trump administration's stance concerning the definition of "meaningful opportunity," Murphy stipulated that all removals of migrants to a third country must be preceded by written notice in the language of the non-citizen who is then given a minimum of 10 days to raise a claim under the U.N. Convention Against Torture. If the migrants' claim is not considered a "reasonable fear," they must be provided a minimum of 15 days to seek to reopen their immigration proceedings, he said. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and DHS officials held a press conference Wednesday to attack Murphy, whom they accused of trying to "dictate the foreign policy and national security of America." DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin described him as an activist judge fighting the Trump administration to return criminals to the United States. She said they had deported eight migrants with criminal records to a country she would not name due to "safety and operational security," despite ICE naming South Sudan in the title of the video uploaded to YouTube. She accused Murphy of "trying to force the United States to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people and American victims." She also claimed that they were compliant with court orders.
