Federal Judge Drops Another Bombshell on Trump Administration Over Deportation Flight

A federal judge has denied the White House’s motion to reconsider his previous ruling related to the deportation of migrants to South Sudan.

This is the latest in a series of legal battles in which the Trump administration defends challenges to its immigration policies. 

US District Judge Brian E. Murphy shot down the administration’s request that he reconsider his previous ruling, noting that the White House violated a preliminary injunction he issued in April requiring it to provide due process to migrants being deported to third countries—nations they are not originally from.

In this case, the administration deported ten migrants from Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico, and Myanmar to South Sudan. The Trump administration explained that each of the deportees had been convicted of heinous crimes such as rape, homicide, armed robbery, and several others.

The injunction mandated that the Trump administration give deportees at least 15 days’ notice that they would be removed from the country. Migrants should be allowed a chance to challenge their deportation, the judge insisted. In a later ruling, Murphy ordered the Trump administration to maintain custody of the deportees after their plane landed in Djibouti.

The court held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the prior order. “Plaintiffs again moved for a temporary restraining order… alleging that Defendants were violating or had already violated the Preliminary Injunction,” the judge wrote.

He further argued that “it is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim.”

Murphy accused DHS of manufacturing “chaos” in its efforts to subvert the court’s order. “Defendants have mischaracterized this Court’s order, while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.”

He further alleged that DHS was trying to obfuscate the matter. “Defendants’ argument might be stronger if this were at all close… From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion.”

The judge indicated that he was willing to allow the administration to conduct due process for the migrants while they are in South Sudan. 

I’m very much considering this, but, if this is the route we go, my inclination would be to say, if you want to do all of these [interviews] where they are, you have to do them appropriately; if you don’t want to, you can always bring them home of your own volition and do it there. And so I’m not going to mandate that the Department do anything overseas, but in an effort to craft as circumscribed a remedy as possible, I’m inclined to say if the Department wants to figure that out, I’m inclined to let them.

The judge countered DHS’ remarks about the migrants’ criminal history, saying they do not nullify constitutional protections and that sending these individuals to a war-torn country without the proper process is dangerous and unlawful. “That does not change due process,” the judge noted.

A federal judge has denied the White House’s motion to reconsider his previous ruling related to the deportation of migrants to South Sudan.

This is the latest in a series of legal battles in which the Trump administration defends challenges to its immigration policies. 

US District Judge Brian E. Murphy shot down the administration’s request that he reconsider his previous ruling, noting that the White House violated a preliminary injunction he issued in April requiring it to provide due process to migrants being deported to third countries—nations they are not originally from.

In this case, the administration deported ten migrants from Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Mexico, and Myanmar to South Sudan. The Trump administration explained that each of the deportees had been convicted of heinous crimes such as rape, homicide, armed robbery, and several others.

The injunction mandated that the Trump administration give deportees at least 15 days’ notice that they would be removed from the country. Migrants should be allowed a chance to challenge their deportation, the judge insisted. In a later ruling, Murphy ordered the Trump administration to maintain custody of the deportees after their plane landed in Djibouti.

The court held that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated the prior order. “Plaintiffs again moved for a temporary restraining order… alleging that Defendants were violating or had already violated the Preliminary Injunction,” the judge wrote.

He further argued that “it is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim.”

Murphy accused DHS of manufacturing “chaos” in its efforts to subvert the court’s order. “Defendants have mischaracterized this Court’s order, while at the same time manufacturing the very chaos they decry.”

He further alleged that DHS was trying to obfuscate the matter. “Defendants’ argument might be stronger if this were at all close… From this course of conduct, it is hard to come to any conclusion other than that Defendants invite a lack of clarity as a means of evasion.”

The judge indicated that he was willing to allow the administration to conduct due process for the migrants while they are in South Sudan. 

I’m very much considering this, but, if this is the route we go, my inclination would be to say, if you want to do all of these [interviews] where they are, you have to do them appropriately; if you don’t want to, you can always bring them home of your own volition and do it there. And so I’m not going to mandate that the Department do anything overseas, but in an effort to craft as circumscribed a remedy as possible, I’m inclined to say if the Department wants to figure that out, I’m inclined to let them.

The judge countered DHS’ remarks about the migrants’ criminal history, saying they do not nullify constitutional protections and that sending these individuals to a war-torn country without the proper process is dangerous and unlawful. “That does not change due process,” the judge noted.