A federal judge has ruled that the Trump administration violated a court order by deporting migrants to countries where they have no ties, denying them sufficient due process to contest their removals.
Judge Brian Murphy, presiding in Massachusetts, criticized the Department of Homeland Security for rapidly deporting eight migrants without complying with an April preliminary injunction that prevents such actions.
Lawyers for at least one of the deported men claim their client was sent to South Sudan, while the government has kept the destination classified.
In a stark warning, Murphy suggested the possibility of holding the government in contempt for what he described as a potential criminal obstruction.
“The department’s actions in this case are unquestionably violative of this court’s order.
To the degree that violation implicates criminal obstruction is a question perhaps resolved for another day,” Murphy stated during a hearing on Wednesday.
He further emphasized, “Based on what I have learned, I don’t see how anybody could say that these individuals had a meaningful opportunity to object.”
The deportation flight took off while the court hearing was still ongoing, leaving at least seven men remaining on the aircraft somewhere abroad.
The Trump administration has faced criticism for its practice of sending migrants to countries with which they have no connection, particularly when their home countries refuse to accept their return.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons defended the administration’s actions, asserting the individuals on the flight had prior criminal convictions in the United States.
“We found a nation who was willing to take custody of these vicious illegal aliens,” argued Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security, referring to the deported individuals.
She characterized them as “uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people and American victims.”
The case arose after immigration attorneys filed an emergency motion on Tuesday, claiming their Vietnamese client received little notice before being put on a plane to a country described as one of the poorest and most politically unstable.
Jonathan Ryan, a lawyer with the nonprofit Advokato, expressed concern over the lack of information available about his client, known only as “N.M.”
Ryan noted that they had a brief conversation on May 16, but due to the language barrier, his client was unable to express his fears about potential deportation.
Ryan discovered shortly after that N.M. had been moved to another facility, making it more difficult to communicate effectively.
Despite initial notifications about his client being sent to South Africa, Ryan later received notice that N.M. was to be deported to South Sudan.
“No meaningful opportunity at all was provided to him to express a fear of being sent to South Sudan,” Ryan stated.
He added, “And let’s be honest, it’s quite possible that my client has never heard of South Sudan.”
As of now, Ryan remains unclear about N.M.’s current location and status.
“Let’s be clear: my client has been disappeared.
I do not know where he is.
The federal judge does not know where he is,” Ryan emphasized.
In a subsequent hearing, government officials indicated that N.M. was being sent to Burma, contradicting earlier notifications.
Ryan voiced skepticism over these claims, insisting, “I want to speak with my client.
I want him to tell me that he is in Burma.
As far as I’m concerned, he’s sitting in South Sudan with a guard potentially of the United States, potentially of South Sudan, hovering over him, telling him to tell me that he is in Burma.”
The judge pointed out the impossibility of the migrants having the chance to contest their deportation due to the limited time frame they were given.
Murphy noted that the individuals were granted only 17 hours of notice before their removal, with some claiming they had just a few hours late at night to express their objections.
During the hearing, government lawyers insisted the individuals had opportunities for objecting to their deportations.
However, Murphy disagreed, stating “the people sent on the plane shows that it’s impossible that they had a meaningful opportunity to object.”
He referenced the inadequate consultation time with attorneys prior to their removal.
“Based on the timeline of events, these people were clearly not provided with sufficient notice,” Murphy remarked.
To address these concerns, the judge indicated he would clarify his initial injunction regarding notice periods required before deportation.
While plaintiffs’ lawyers argued for at least 30 days’ notice before removal, the Justice Department maintained that 24 hours was adequate.
Murphy previously ordered the Department of Homeland Security to keep custody of any migrants sent to third countries until their due process was properly verified.
The Department of Justice has suggested that DHS officials conduct interviews with the deported individuals regarding any fears of persecution while they remain in U.S. custody abroad.
Furthermore, McLaughlin stated that South Sudan may not be the final destination for the deported migrants and referred inquiries about these negotiations to the State Department.
The State Department has not immediately responded to queries regarding the deportees’ destination or the agreements with South Sudan.
In a clear stance against their willingness to accept deportees, South Sudan’s police spokesman asserted that the country would only accept South Sudanese nationals.
He also refuted reports of any flights arriving with deportees from the U.S. and affirmed that any non-South Sudanese arriving would be sent back to their countries of origin.
Additionally, this is not the first incident where a country has opposed being used as a third-party destination for U.S. deportations.
Earlier this month, Libyan officials also denied rumors that they would accept U.S. deportees who were not Libyan nationals.
As the Trump administration seeks alternatives for deportation destinations, countries such as El Salvador and Mexico have accepted some migrants who cannot return to their home countries.
This ongoing situation raises significant questions regarding the rights of migrants and the U.S. government’s adherence to legal protocols concerning deportation and due process.
As more information becomes available, advocates and legal representatives are calling for immediate action to safeguard the rights of those affected by these policies.
image source from：https://www.npr.org/2025/05/21/nx-s1-5406208/trump-administration-defends-flight-of-migrants-to-third-countries
