Judge Says It ‘Unquestionably’ Violated His Ruling

Topline

The Trump administration violated a federal court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without giving them a “meaningful” opportunity to protest being sent there, Judge Brian Murphy ruled Wednesday, the latest instance of the Trump administration being accused of defying court orders in how it’s carrying out its mass deportations.

People in Southern Sudan wave the country’s flag in the capital of Juba.

AP2011

Key Facts

Murphy ruled Wednesday the Trump administration’s decision to send migrants to South Sudan “unquestionably” violated a previous order he issued, which blocked the government from deporting people to a third country—meaning one other than the U.S. or their home country—without giving them a “meaningful” opportunity to protest the removal.

The Trump administration sent at least eight migrants to South Sudan on Tuesday as part of its broader mass deportation plans, and attorneys representing some of those deported immediately asked the court to return the migrants so they have an opportunity to register any fears about being sent to the war-torn country.

Murphy ruled the migrants were not given proper notice before being sent to South Sudan, noting they were only informed of their removal Monday evening and were put on a plane Thursday morning, giving them no time during business hours to contact their attorneys or meaningfully protest the plan in court.

Government attorneys told the court Wednesday that the Trump administration doesn’t believe it violated the order, as Murphy’s order wasn’t specific about what constitutes “meaningful” time to respond—which the judge disagreed with, saying that while his order didn’t give a specific time frame, he doesn’t “think there’s any interpretation” of his ruling “that would comport with” the Trump administration’s actions.

The migrants’ flight to South Sudan has landed but they are still on the plane in ICE custody, according to the Trump administration.

Murphy has not yet ruled on whether to send the migrants back to the U.S. and asked the Trump administration for clarity on whether immigrants could be questioned at all in South Sudan about their objections to being sent there, but said he intends to amend his previous ruling to give a more specific time frame before people can be sent to third countries.

What To Watch For

The legal proceedings are still ongoing, and it’s unclear whether the migrants will return to the U.S. from South Sudan. Murphy also declined to rule Wednesday on whether Trump officials committed criminal contempt by defying his previous order, saying that was an issue he would leave for “another day.” The Trump administration claims it was not acting in contempt by willfully defying the judge’s order, alleging since Murphy wasn’t specific about how much notice they had to give the immigrants, they believed they were in compliance with his ruling.

Chief Critic

The White House has strongly defended its decision to send the migrants to South Sudan, pointing to their criminal histories and calling Murphy an “activist judge” by ruling against them. “A local judge in Massachusetts is trying to force the United States to bring back these uniquely barbaric monsters who present a clear and present threat to the safety of the American people and American victims,” Assistant DHS Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement Wednesday while Murphy’s hearing was still ongoing. “While we are fully compliant with the law and court orders, it is absolutely absurd for a district judge to try and dictate the foreign policy and national security of the United States of America.”

What We Don’t Know

What will happen to the migrants if their removal to South Sudan is carried out. A spokesperson for the country’s police force told the Associated Press on Wednesday that any migrants sent to the country would be investigated and “redeported to their correct country” if they’re not South Sudanese—a point that Murphy brought up to the Trump administration’s attorneys on Wednesday. The attorneys said they were not aware of the comments. Homeland Security officials also suggested at a news conference Wednesday that South Sudan might not be the migrants’ “final destination,” though they’ve declined to give any further specifics on their plans.

Why Is Being Sent To South Sudan Controversial?

Critics of the Trump administration have pointed to South Sudan’s harsh political climate to protest the decision to send migrants there. The country is believed to be on the brink of civil war and the State Department has put the country on its “do not travel” list and removed non-essential embassy staff, warning Americans that “violent crime, such as carjackings, shootings, ambushes, assaults, robberies, and kidnappings are common throughout South Sudan.” “Foreign nationals have been the victims of rape, sexual assault, armed robberies, and other violent crimes,” the State Department warns, also pointing to the ongoing armed conflict in the country and the widespread availability of weapons.

Who Are The Migrants Sent To South Sudan?

According to a news release sent out by the Trump administration, the group of migrants deported to South Sudan include citizens from Burma, Cuba, Laos, Mexico, South Sudan and Vietnam. They have been convicted of crimes that include robbery, first- and second-degree murder and sexual assault, and the Trump administration said during Wednesday’s hearing that they have already gone through removal proceedings and been ordered to be deported.

Key Background

The flight to South Sudan is the latest in a string of controversies over the Trump administration’s deportations of migrants to third countries, which the government claims is necessary in cases where migrants’ home governments are unwilling to take them back. The government first garnered scrutiny for sending hundreds of migrants to a prison in El Salvador, claiming they were members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua despite evidence showing many of them have no ties to the group. Murphy’s initial order halting third-country removals then came as the Trump administration tried to deport migrants—including some of those sent to South Sudan—to Libya. It ultimately backed down from sending the migrants there in response to the judge’s ruling. Murphy’s conclusion Wednesday that the Trump administration violated his ruling also comes as the government has faced broader scrutiny over allegedly defying court rulings regarding its deportation plans, landing the flights to El Salvador after Judge James Boasberg ordered for the planes to be turned around, and failing to bring Maryland man Kilmar Abrego Garcia back from El Salvador after the Supreme Court ordered the government to facilitate his return. Boasberg ruled in April there’s evidence the Trump administration acted in criminal contempt by violating his order. The government has also repeatedly faced scrutiny for not giving migrants any time to protest their removals or challenge them in court, and Trump officials have suggested they could suspend the writ of habeas corpus, which means they would deny immigrants the right to protest their detention.