A U.S. District Judge has, thus far, ruled decisively against. That’s why the Trump administration’s plan to deport migrants to South Sudan—a country on the cusp of civil war and recognized by many as a failed state—was a clear violation of the court order. This ruling comes on the heels of public disclosure that eight people had been deported to South Sudan. Having initially arrived from other countries, this further exacerbated concerns around their safety and legal rights.
On April 18, Judge Brian E. Murphy granted a preliminary injunction. This ruling requires that all migrants who are subject to deportation to a third country, like South Sudan, be afforded the due process they are owed under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The judge’s ruling came after he was informed by the plaintiffs that the Trump administration had preemptively deported eight migrants to South Sudan. This occurred even though their countries of origin—Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan—had denied repatriation for them.
South Sudan is experiencing dire volatility at the moment. Other civil war experts sound the alarm that the country is on the precipice of an erupting second civil war. In his ruling, Judge Murphy emphasized the need to provide deported individuals a “meaningful opportunity” to raise any potential safety concerns. He twice emphasized that this needs to take place during their court cases.
During an emergency hearing in Boston, Judge Murphy stated, “While the court leaves the practicalities of compliance to defendants’ discretion … the court expects that class members will be treated humanely.” His comments highlighted an important sense of urgency related to addressing migrants who are being put into deportation.
Following the deportations, South Sudan’s police spokesman, Maj Gen James Enoka, came out to set the record straight. He clarified that there haven’t been any migrants in the country yet. He went on to stress that all new arrivals would be dealt with application strictly and carefully. If they’re determined not to have come from South Sudan, they can be quickly re-deported back to their home countries.
The Trump administration has been rightly criticized for its handling of this disaster. A spokesperson from the Department of Homeland Security acknowledged the deportations but cited “very serious operational and safety concerns” as reasons for not disclosing further information about the final destinations of those deported.
“Because of safety and operational security, we cannot tell you what the final destination for these individuals will be,” – [Department of Homeland Security spokesperson]
The family of one Vietnamese man recently released from deportation said they felt hopeless in this chaotic moment. His spouse pleaded for intervention, stating, “Please help! … They cannot be allowed to do this.” This illustrates the human cost and chaos that so many families are facing in the wake of these unlawful and destructive deportations.
Critics have taken to the airwaves to vehemently decry Judge Murphy’s decision. Tricia McLaughlin, a spokeswoman for the Trump administration’s DOT, today smacks it down as an overreach. She stated, “It is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try to dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States.” These remarks provide a glimpse into the larger, underlying fight over immigration policy and judicial review.
As this legal battle continues, their future and the future for the deported individuals is unclear. The role of Judge Murphy’s injunction is an important safeguard. It is a moral imperative that migrants live with fairness and dignity, no matter when they are fleeing danger in areas as volatile as South Sudan.