Judge warns US deportations to South Sudan may breach court order
3 min read
Federal judge flags possible violation as U.S. deports migrants to conflict-hit South Sudan.
A U.S. federal judge has raised alarm over the deportation of a group of migrants to South Sudan, warning that the Biden administration may have breached a standing court order. Judge Brian Murphy, based in Boston, stated that the removals may be in contempt of his April ruling, which bars the U.S. government from deporting individuals to third countries without giving them a fair chance to challenge the deportation in court.
The judge’s warning came after immigration attorneys filed an emergency motion on Tuesday, stating that a deportation flight had landed in South Sudan, carrying around a dozen migrants. Among those reportedly removed were citizens from Myanmar and Vietnam, though others from countries like Laos, Thailand, Pakistan, and Mexico were also believed to be on board.
Judge Murphy, appointed by President Joe Biden, told a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney that the deportations may have violated his injunction. “Based on what I have been told, this seems like it may be contempt,” he said, emphasizing that the court order had been clear about the rights of migrants to contest such removals.
The removals appear to be part of a broader crackdown on immigration, aligning with former President Donald Trump’s hardline stance on mass deportations. Trump had made curbing illegal immigration a central theme of his presidency, and this case represents another flashpoint between federal courts and executive immigration policy.
During the hearing, DOJ lawyer Elianis Perez stated that one Burmese national had been deported to Myanmar, not South Sudan. She refused to reveal the destination of a Vietnamese migrant, citing “classified” information, and confirmed the man had been convicted of murder. An attorney for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also said that a rapist was among those deported on the same flight.
Judge Murphy stopped short of ordering the deportation flight to return but insisted the migrants must remain in custody and be treated “humanely” until a follow-up hearing. He added that, depending on circumstances, the flight could be ordered to remain on the tarmac upon landing.
The April 18 ruling by Judge Murphy had explicitly required that migrants facing removal to a third country be granted an opportunity to appeal. This order followed concerns that the U.S. was considering deporting migrants to dangerous countries such as Libya, a move the judge said would be in clear violation of due process.
The South Sudan case brings renewed focus on how deportation policies are executed and whether they comply with judicial oversight. The U.S. State Department currently warns Americans against traveling to South Sudan, citing extreme risks due to violent crime, kidnapping, and ongoing armed conflict. The country has faced persistent unrest since its independence in 2011, including a brutal civil war that displaced millions.
Attorneys involved in the case said that the Burmese migrant, identified only as N.M., speaks limited English and did not understand or sign his removal notice while held at a Texas detention center. His lawyer became alarmed when he disappeared from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainee locator. Upon inquiring, she was told he had been deported—to South Sudan.
The Vietnamese man, identified as T.T.P., is believed to have been deported under similar circumstances. His spouse contacted legal representatives, reporting that the flight also included migrants from several other nations. “Please help! They cannot be allowed to do this,” the spouse pleaded in an email, echoing growing fears about the safety of those deported to high-risk destinations.
This controversy is the latest constitutional clash between the judiciary and the executive branch over immigration enforcement. A similar case saw another federal judge in Washington, D.C., last month find probable cause to hold Trump-era officials in contempt for violating a ruling that halted deportations of Venezuelan nationals.
Countries including Rwanda, Benin, Angola, Equatorial Guinea, Eswatini, and Moldova have reportedly been approached by U.S. officials to accept deported migrants.
As legal proceedings unfold, the question remains whether these deportations will be reversed—or whether they signal a continuing pattern of tension between immigration enforcement and judicial authority.
About The Author
