The Supreme Court has cleared the path for the Trump administration to deport a group of immigrants held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan.
In a brief opinion issued on Friday, the justices affirmed that their prior order, which stayed a federal judge’s ruling in Massachusetts that had restricted the government’s ability to deport immigrants to countries not explicitly named in their removal orders, applies in full to the eight immigrants currently in U.S. custody in Djibouti.
The order came less than two weeks after the high court temporarily stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, whose order barred the federal government from deporting immigrants to “third countries”—those not explicitly named in their removal orders—without first ensuring, through a series of safeguards, that the individuals would not face torture upon deportation.
Murphy’s May 21 ruling found that the government violated his April 18 order by attempting to deport eight men to South Sudan. The U.S. has evacuated all non-emergency personnel from South Sudan, and the State Department advises against travel there due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”
The flight carrying the immigrants bound for South Sudan instead landed in nearby Djibouti, where the men have since been held at a U.S. military base.
On May 27, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to stay Murphy’s April 18 order, seeking permission to proceed with “third country” removals while the legal battle over the practice unfolds.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that Murphy’s “judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process” and “disrupt[ing] sensitive diplomatic, foreign policy, and national-security efforts.”
Lawyers representing the immigrants facing potential third-country removals urged the justices to uphold Murphy’s order. They emphasized that the government could still proceed with these deportations, but Murphy’s order “simply requires” the Trump administration “to comply with the law” in doing so.
Several hours after the Supreme Court responded to the Trump administration’s first request, made on June 23, Murphy then claimed that his May 21 order remained unaffected by the high court’s decision.
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court the following day, requesting that the justices clarify the federal government’s authority to proceed with deporting the immigrants currently held in Djibouti. Sauer urged the court to act swiftly to address what he called Murphy’s “unprecedented defiance” of the court’s authority.
In Thursday’s brief, an unsigned 7-2 opinion, the majority indicated that the court’s “June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
Two of the Supreme Court’s liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, while the third liberal, Justice Elena Kagan, sided with the court’s conservative majority.
She noted that she had previously disagreed with the Supreme Court’s original ruling permitting third-country removals to proceed. “But a majority of this court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed,” she wrote.
The eight illegal immigrants include individuals from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, reports noted.
Sotomayor’s dissent contended that “[w]hat 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.”
She argued that the court should not have considered the government’s request at all, as the government should have made its arguments in the lower courts first. Moreover, she suggested that the Supreme Court’s “continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing to properly divine their import, is indefensible.”
If Pacey and Joey were the only couple that ever “made total and complete sense” on your
On July 21, Deadline announced that Holmes, who played our beloved Joey Potter, is set to write, direct, and star in
Read on to learn more about Katie Holmes and Joshua Jackson’s reunion and who else has been cast in the film trilogy!
Happy Hours follows characters portrayed by Holmes and Jackson as they navigate their relationship “within the challenges of careers and family responsibilities and the pursuit of love, despite life’s inevitable obstacles.” For anyone who loves a second-chance romance, the trilogy has been promoted as an “emotional journey of young loves who reconnect as adults.”
While the setting of the trilogy has not been confirmed, filming has begun in New York City for the first movie, with both Jackson and Holmes being spotted on set.
There is no official release date for Happy Hours as of July 2025. According to Deadline, the first film in the trilogy is set to film in New York this summer, with the following two movies set to film shortly after. Given the current filming schedule, viewers can expect to see the first installment of this Pacey and Joey reunion to hit screens no sooner than summer 2026.
Other than Holmes and Jackson, multiple actors have joined the Happy Hours cast. On the day that Happy Hours was first announced, it was confirmed that Broadway star Joe Tippett (Waitress, Mare of Easttown) has joined the cast. The stage star is joined by Donald Webber Jr., best known for Severance, and Nathan Darrow from House of Cards.
Following the announcement, Holmes posted on her Instagram about the cast and crew. She stated, “I am so very grateful to be working again with so many of my wonderful friends on this film HAPPY HOURS. And working with Josh after so many years is a testament to friendship. HAPPY HOURS is a love story that includes so many people I adore. We can’t wait for everyone to see what we make.” In the post, she tagged Jackson, Constance Wu, Mary Louise Parker, John McGinty, Donald Webber Jr., Sky Smith, Brie Welch, and Michael Fitzgerald.
The former costars’ chemistry extended off-screen, as the Pacey and Joey actors had a real-life relationship during the early seasons of Dawson’s Creek back in 1998. At 19 years old, Holmes gave a now-famous interview to Rolling Stone where she alluded to her relationship with Jackson, sharing, “I’m just going to say that I met somebody last year. I fell in love, I had my first love, and it was something so incredible and indescribable that I will treasure it always.”
Ironically, Holmes and Jackson broke up in 1999, around the time their characters became an official couple on the show. While many did not expect a public reunion to be in the cards for the exes, earlier this year Jackson reflected on their relationship, stating on Jesse Tyler Ferguson‘s Dinner’s on Me podcast, “Katie and I are very close. It’s not a daily call. Sometimes it’s not a weekly or monthly or even a half-yearly call.” Seems like the duo will be seeing a lot more of each other than a daily call for the foreseeable future.