Supreme Court Backs Trump Administration’s Push to Deport Detainees to South Sudan

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s plan to deport a group of immigrants held at a military facility in Djibouti, greenlighting their removal to South Sudan despite concerns over safety and legality.

In a ruling released Friday, the court affirmed that an earlier order suspending a lower court’s decision would now fully apply to the eight immigrants currently detained overseas. These individuals had initially faced deportation from the United States but were rerouted to Djibouti when legal challenges disrupted their removal process.

The original legal block came from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts. His decision had barred the government from sending immigrants to countries not specifically named in their deportation orders—referred to as “third-country” removals—without following certain legal safeguards. These safeguards aimed to ensure that individuals would not face torture or mistreatment in the countries they were being sent to.

Judge Murphy had ruled on May 21 that the government violated an earlier injunction from April 18 by trying to deport the group of eight men to South Sudan—a country the U.S. State Department warns against visiting due to widespread violence, crime, and instability. As a result of the blocked removal, the men were flown to Djibouti and have been held at a U.S. military base there since.

On May 27, the Trump administration filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court, asking for permission to move forward with third-country deportations while the broader legal battle continued. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that Judge Murphy’s court-imposed rules were causing significant disruption to sensitive matters of diplomacy, foreign policy, and national security.

Attorneys representing the detainees countered that the federal government was still permitted to carry out removals but had to do so within the bounds of existing legal protections. They emphasized that the judge’s ruling simply required the administration to comply with legal due process.

Despite Murphy’s assertion that his May 21 ruling was still valid, the Supreme Court responded to the administration’s follow-up request by reaffirming its stance. In an unsigned 7-2 opinion issued Thursday, the court stated that its previous June 23 ruling had effectively nullified Murphy’s injunction, and that subsequent orders based on that injunction were unenforceable.

While liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, Justice Elena Kagan sided with the court’s conservative majority, even though she had previously opposed allowing third-country deportations. “Although I disagree with the underlying decision, it’s clear the district court cannot enforce an injunction that this court has already suspended,” she said.

Justice Sotomayor, however, strongly criticized the court’s decision, warning that it enabled the government to deliver the detained immigrants to South Sudan without any assurance they wouldn’t face harm. “What the government is effectively doing,” she wrote, “is transferring these individuals—who were removed from the U.S. in violation of court orders—to a volatile region without any legal review of the risks they face there.”

She also denounced the court’s pattern of issuing major decisions without clear explanation. “The Supreme Court’s continued reluctance to clarify its extraordinary interventions—while chastising lower courts for misinterpreting them—is deeply troubling,” she added.

The eight detainees at the heart of the case are reportedly from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. Their fate now lies in the hands of the Trump administration, which, with the Supreme Court’s blessing, may proceed with their removal to South Sudan—a country still grappling with ongoing conflict and humanitarian crises.