The Supreme Court has granted the Trump administration permission to deport a group of eight immigrants currently detained at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan, reversing lower court restrictions. In a brief 7–2 decision issued Friday, the justices confirmed that their earlier order—temporarily lifting a federal injunction that limited deportations to countries not specifically named in removal orders—applied fully to the immigrants in question. The ruling effectively nullifies an order from U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts, who had sought to block such “third-country” deportations until the government could prove that those being removed would not face torture or harm.
Judge Murphy’s initial injunction, issued in April, prohibited the federal government from deporting immigrants to nations not listed in their original removal orders without first establishing safeguards against human rights violations. When officials attempted to deport eight men to South Sudan, Murphy ruled in May that they had violated his order, citing the severe instability in the region. The State Department has long warned against travel to South Sudan due to high levels of violence, kidnapping, and armed conflict. The deportation flight was ultimately diverted to Djibouti, where the immigrants have been held in custody at a U.S. military base while legal disputes continued.
The Trump administration responded swiftly, asking the Supreme Court to stay Murphy’s order. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the judge’s restrictions interfered with the government’s ability to manage immigration policy and complicated sensitive diplomatic and national security matters. According to Sauer, Murphy’s court-imposed procedures were “wreaking havoc” on the deportation system and undermining international coordination. The administration sought to reinstate its authority to conduct third-country deportations, a practice used when direct repatriation to an immigrant’s home country is deemed unfeasible.
Attorneys representing the immigrants urged the justices to uphold Murphy’s injunction, arguing that it simply required the government to follow established law regarding the treatment of individuals who might face torture or death upon deportation. They insisted that the order did not prohibit deportations outright but rather demanded accountability and compliance with international human rights standards. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court sided with the administration, stating that Murphy’s May order could not be enforced because the justices’ earlier decision had already stayed the underlying injunction. The unsigned majority opinion clarified that the high court’s June 23 order suspended all lower-court restrictions, thus allowing the deportations to move forward.
Justice Elena Kagan, the court’s third liberal, joined the conservative majority despite previously opposing the broader policy of third-country removals. In a concurring note, she wrote that although she disagreed with the policy itself, she could not support a lower court’s attempt to enforce an injunction that had already been stayed by the Supreme Court. In contrast, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented sharply, accusing the majority of enabling potentially unlawful and dangerous deportations. Sotomayor argued that the government intended to send the eight noncitizens—reportedly from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos—to a nation where they might face extreme violence, without sufficient assurance of their safety.
Sotomayor’s dissent went further, condemning the court’s handling of the case and suggesting that the majority had acted outside normal judicial procedure. She maintained that the administration should have pursued its arguments through the lower courts before seeking Supreme Court intervention. Criticizing what she called the court’s “extraordinary decisions” and lack of transparency, Sotomayor warned that the ruling undermines both judicial oversight and international human rights protections. With the decision now in place, the Trump administration has cleared a key legal obstacle to resuming third-country deportations, setting a precedent for future cases in which deportees are sent to nations not named in their original removal orders.
