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.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi obliterated Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin over the Jeffrey Epstein files.
During a Senate Judiciary Hearing on Tuesday, Tennessee Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn was brought up because she has pushed for the release of Epstein files in the past.
Bondi and Blackburn asserted that Durbin was impeding the effort, but Durbin refuted this, despite records indicating he had indeed blocked the release.
Blackburn and Bondi tag-teamed Durbin after he denied a subpoena for the flight logs and knowing Reid Hoffman, a known Epstein affiliate.
“I find it very interesting that you refused repeated Republican requests to release the Epstein flight log in 2023 and 2024, you fought that. Did you take money from Reid Hoffman campaign donations?” Bondi said
Durbin denied taking donations from Hoffman, but Hoffman has given millions to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC), which supports Durbin as a top Senate Democrat.
Bondi shot back: “Why did you fight to not disclose the flight logs, Senator Durbin?”
Durbin falsely claimed that he “did not” fight against” Blackburn’s subpoena, adding, “I asked you if you wanted any documents like flight logs to put it in writing. You never did.”
Blackburn shot back: “Yes, sir, I did. And your staff knows that I did. We’ll submit once again, the information to you. We’ve done that several times, but we’ll be happy to once again send it to you. I think your staff doesn’t show that to you.”Bondi made it clear with her opening statement that she planned to correct many lies from Democrats in recent weeks.
“They are a critical reminder of our central mission here at the Department of Justice protecting the safety and security of the American people. That is why, even when the government is otherwise shut down because of the Democrats, the department’s law enforcement officers and prosecutors are hard at work, fighting crime, keeping our streets safe and protecting you from the threats, foreign and domestic. When I was confirmed as the 80 seventh attorney general of the United States, I took office with to mangles to in the weapon, is nation of justice and return the department to it’s core mission of fighting violent crime as to ending the weapon possession of justice. We learn that former FBI secretly investigated you and your colleagues why they wanted to take president,” Bondi began.
“Trump off the playing field. They were playing politics with law enforcement powers and will go down as a historic. The trail of public trust, this is the kind of conduct that shatters the American people’s faith in our law enforcement system. We will work to earn that back every single day,” she added.
“We are returning to our core mission of fighting real crime. While there is more work to do, I believe in eight short months we have made tremendous progress towards those ends. Our federal surges in Washington D.C. in memphis are a perfect example of how the Department of Justice should operate week created strong partnerships with local leadership working hand in hand with both cities to send resources where they were needed. Most, the results speak for themselves,” she added.“Despite the unprecedented degree of activism we’ve seen from the lower courts, we have never ignored a court order and why would we we have secured a historic 20 two victories at the Supreme Court alone with more to come,. Our civil rights attorneys are fighting discrimination and anti Semitism. Our criminal attorneys are prosecuting violent criminals and foreign terrorist every single day. I look forward to continuing this work at the Department of Justice and I look forward to testifying before you today,” Bondi added.