In a significant move, the Trump administration recently deported a group of eight men convicted of serious crimes in the United States to South Sudan, a country currently facing severe conflict and instability. This decision came after a lengthy legal battle that kept the deportees confined at a military base in Djibouti for several weeks.
Assistant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin announced that the deportation flight landed in South Sudan just before midnight EST on Friday. A photograph released by the department depicted the men, shackled and guarded by U.S. service members, inside the aircraft.
The deportations are particularly notable as none of the individuals being sent to South Sudan are originally from that country. Instead, they hail from various nations including Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan, and Vietnam. Each had received deportation orders following serious criminal convictions, including murder, homicide, sexual assault, and robbery.
The legal scrutiny surrounding the deportations intensified as immigration rights advocates attempted to halt the process. However, on Friday, two federal judges ultimately denied a last-ditch effort to stop the removals, citing the restrictions imposed by recent U.S. Supreme Court orders.
McLaughlin heralded the deportations as a victory for the Trump administration’s broader campaign against illegal immigration, asserting that a district judge does not have the authority to dictate the nation’s security or foreign policy.
“This Independence Day marks another victory for the safety and security of the American people,” she commented.
Human rights groups expressed deep concern regarding the deportations, warning that the individuals could face severe consequences such as jail time, torture, or other forms of harm upon arrival in South Sudan. Legal advocates argue that the deportations not only failed to provide due process but were also punitive measures against men who had already served their sentences in the U.S.
Trina Realmuto, an attorney for the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, condemned the actions, noting the irony that the U.S. State Department advises against any travel to South Sudan yet proceeded to deport these men there without a fair legal process.
“Make no mistake about it, these deportations were punitive and unconstitutional,” Realmuto stated.
The situation regarding how these deportees will be treated remains uncertain. In court, a Justice Department lawyer informed a federal judge that South Sudan had notified the U.S. that it would provide the men with temporary immigration status, but could not confirm whether they would be detained.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, insists that South Sudanese officials have guaranteed that the deportees would not face torture upon their arrival.
The Supreme Court’s involvement was crucial in enabling this deportation to occur. Earlier this week, following a request from the Trump administration, the Supreme Court clarified the scope of a prior order which had paused deportations to third-party countries without appropriate due process and notice.
Notably, a ruling issued in April by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts had mandated that the Trump administration must provide sufficient notice and allow detainees to contest their deportations to non-citizen countries.
Judge Murphy’s decision had previously obstructed several deportation efforts, including plans to send individuals back to Libya. In May, upon learning of the administration’s intent to deport the eight men to South Sudan, Murphy halted the effort, reinforcing the requirement for the U.S. to retain custody of detainees and allowing them the chance to contest their deportation.
During their time at Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, detainees faced unsafe and uncomfortable conditions. Reports indicated issues such as concerns about malaria, rocket attacks, and extreme outdoor temperatures exceeding 100 degrees Fahrenheit.
However, a Supreme Court decision last month temporarily suspended Murphy’s previous ruling. The Court further clarified on Thursday that Murphy could no longer require the government to allow the detainees to contest their deportation because the order that initially supported that requirement had been paused.
Following these developments, immigration rights advocates sought the intervention of a different federal judge, Randolph Moss in Washington, D.C., requesting to halt the deportations to South Sudan. Though he briefly granted the request, Moss ultimately directed them to seek help from Judge Murphy.
Moss voiced apprehensions regarding the potential risks to the men’s “physical safety” and underscored that the U.S. government should not engage in causing “pain and suffering” to individuals who have already completed their sentences, even for heinous crimes. Nevertheless, he acknowledged that his authority was limited, and the advocates would have to request further intervention from Murphy.
In the end, Murphy rejected the advocates’ plea, citing the Supreme Court orders as binding. This series of events marks a new chapter in the ongoing discourse around immigration policy and the treatment of deportees, particularly those sent to precarious conditions.
image source from：cbsnews
