Supreme Court Backs Trump’s South Sudan Deportations

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

The Supreme Court has made a significant decision, allowing the Trump administration to deport eight men to South Sudan. This ruling impacts individuals primarily from countries other than South Sudan, sending them to a nation described as war-torn. This action marks a victory for the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown. It also raises serious questions about due process and humanitarian concerns for those affected. For many in the African diaspora and communities of color, this decision highlights ongoing challenges within the immigration system. It underscores how policies can disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.

The Court’s Controversial Ruling

The Supreme Court recently cleared the path for the Trump administration to deport eight migrants to South Sudan. This decision came despite the fact that most of these individuals do not have ties to the East African nation. The group includes men from various countries, such as Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Mexico (npr.org). Only one of the eight men is actually from South Sudan.

This ruling by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court overturned a lower court’s injunction. That injunction had required an opportunity for migrants to argue against deportation to a “third country” (UPI.com). Third country deportations involve sending individuals to nations that are not their home countries. This practice often occurs when legal or logistical barriers prevent deportation to their country of origin. The court’s brief order did not provide an explanation for its decision (miamiherald.com). However, it aligns with previous rulings that have allowed the administration to deport many immigrants.

Due Process Under Fire

A district court had previously ruled in favor of lawyers representing the eight migrants. Judge Brian Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts had stated that people must receive a “credible fear” interview in their native language (npr.org). This interview allows asylum seekers to express their fear of persecution or torture if returned to their home country. Judge Murphy also mandated that individuals must receive at least 15 days to challenge their deportations (npr.org). Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized Judge Murphy, calling him a “rogue district court judge” (fortune.com). She asserted that the Supreme Court’s decision rebuked his earlier ruling.

Concerns about due process are central to this case. Due process refers to the legal rights and protections individuals are entitled to before being removed from the United States. This includes the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to present a case. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, strongly criticized the Supreme Court’s decision. She stated that it “strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death” (washingtonpost.com). This sentiment was echoed by dissenting justices.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, voiced strong concerns in her dissent. She highlighted that the government had already deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration Judge found he was likely to face torture there (miamiherald.com). Justice Sotomayor also noted that six more individuals were deported to South Sudan in clear violation of a court order (miamiherald.com). She argued that the Trump administration had previously acted “in violation of unambiguous” lower court orders by flying noncitizens to Guantanamo Bay and then to El Salvador (npr.org). Justice Sotomayor concluded that the order “clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial” (scotusblog.com). This statement implies a concern about unequal application of legal standards, especially for those seeking protection.

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

The Trump administration maintains that the individuals being deported are violent criminals. They assert that these individuals have final orders of removal (npr.org). A final order of removal is a legal determination that an individual must be deported from the United States, typically after all appeals have been exhausted. The government states that these men were convicted of serious crimes, including murder, sexual assault, kidnapping, and robbery (npr.org). Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have confirmed that the eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the U.S. and had final orders of removal (fortune.com). McLaughlin, a government official, called the decision “a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people” (spectrumlocalnews.com).

This decision fits within the broader context of the Trump administration’s immigration policies. The administration has pursued a sweeping crackdown on immigration. It has pledged to deport millions of people living in the United States without authorization (fortune.com). A key part of this strategy involves actively seeking agreements with other countries. These agreements aim to house immigrants who cannot be quickly returned to their homelands (fortune.com). The administration argues that its third-country policy is crucial for removing migrants who have committed crimes, especially when their countries of origin are unwilling to accept them back (reuters.com).

A June 14th memo discussed expanding the list of countries in the current travel ban. It also noted that 36 additional countries, mostly in Africa, including South Sudan, could potentially agree to accept immigrants from other countries deported from the U.S. (counterpunch.org). This indicates a strategic effort to broaden the options for deportation, even to nations where deportees have no familial or national ties.

Humanitarian Fallout

The humanitarian consequences for individuals deported to South Sudan are a major concern. South Sudan is consistently described as “war-torn” and unsafe (UPI.com). The U.S. State Department considers it too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel (miamiherald.com). Lawyers representing the migrants argued that their clients would be subjected to torture or receive degrading treatment if deported to South Sudan (UPI.com). The risks include exposure to violence, instability, and a lack of humanitarian protection. The broader challenge to the administration’s policy, which aims to restore protections against torture and death, is still underway in lower courts (washingtonpost.com).

This Supreme Court decision sets a significant legal precedent for future deportation cases. It affirms the Trump administration’s ability to deport migrants to “third countries” without the extensive due process protections previously mandated by lower courts (scotusblog.com). This is particularly true concerning the assessment of torture risk. The ruling signals a more streamlined approach to such deportations. It could lead to similar outcomes in future cases, potentially eroding due process protections for other migrants facing deportation to unsafe third countries. Justice Sotomayor’s concern about the administration having the Supreme Court “on speed dial” underscores the potential for preferential treatment in future cases, raising alarms for advocates of immigrant rights.

Public Response

Human rights groups and legal advocates have expressed strong concerns about the Supreme Court’s decision. They view it as a significant setback for due process. It also represents a potential increase in humanitarian risks for deportees. Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance emphasized that the decision “strips away critical due process protections that have been protecting our class members from torture and death” (washingtonpost.com). These groups worry about the safety and well-being of individuals sent to unstable regions.

The provided information does not explicitly detail specific international agreements with South Sudan that facilitate these deportations. However, it indicates the U.S. government’s ongoing efforts to find countries willing to accept deported migrants who are not their citizens (counterpunch.org). The push to expand the list of potential receiving countries, especially in Africa, highlights a broader strategy. This strategy aims to accelerate deportations, even at the expense of established legal protections and humanitarian considerations. The decision underscores the challenges faced by immigrant communities and their advocates in navigating complex legal landscapes and evolving immigration policies.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.