Supreme Court Backs Deportation to War-Torn South Sudan \ TezzBuzz \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Eight immigrants deported from the U.S. were sent to South Sudan after prolonged legal battles. The Supreme Court allowed their removal, despite warnings about instability in the destination country. The men, held in Djibouti during court reviews, were convicted of violent crimes.
In a development that underscores the increasingly aggressive stance on deportations, eight immigrants previously residing in the United States were removed to the war-ravaged nation of South Sudan, following a Supreme Court ruling that favored expedited removals to third countries. The case, which involved intense legal back-and-forth over several months, culminated with the men’s transfer from a military holding site in Djibouti to the African nation, despite international travel warnings and humanitarian concerns.
The deportees, originating from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan, were sent to South Sudan on Friday after a series of court rulings eliminated their remaining legal avenues for appeal. According to U.S. officials, each of the eight men had been convicted of violent crimes and were under final orders of removal. Their cases had reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ultimately sided with the administration’s position that they could be deported—even to countries they were not originally from—if their homeland refused reentry.
Originally flown out of the U.S. in May, the men were en route to South Sudan when a federal judge intervened, citing violations of due process. The administration was accused of failing to provide the men an opportunity to challenge their removal, contrary to the judge’s order. The plane was diverted to Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. military installation in Djibouti, where the detainees were reportedly housed in a converted shipping container for several weeks under armed guard while legal arguments played out.
On Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority issued a pivotal ruling reversing the lower court’s block, stating that immigration authorities have the power to swiftly deport individuals with final orders—even to third countries—so long as removal agreements exist. The decision reinstated the Trump-era position, which the Biden administration had opted to follow in this case.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, hailed the completion of the deportations as “a win for the rule of law, safety, and security of the American people.” Yet human rights advocates and legal experts have raised serious concerns about the use of South Sudan—a country plagued by armed conflict, instability, and humanitarian crises—as a destination for deportation.
The U.S. State Department currently advises against all travel to South Sudan, citing risks of violent crime, civil unrest, and kidnapping. That makes the selection of the country particularly controversial, given that it not only endangers deportees but may also strain diplomatic and logistical frameworks with such unstable regions.
The men attempted a last-minute appeal during a flurry of Independence Day hearings. The judge overseeing the case ultimately ruled he was powerless to halt the removals, as the Supreme Court had rendered a decision that left no room for further judicial intervention. He deferred final authority to a Boston judge who had originally paused the deportations, but that judge too acknowledged the Supreme Court had effectively tied the lower courts’ hands.
This episode is part of a broader pattern of shifting U.S. immigration policy, particularly in how it handles individuals who cannot be returned to their countries of origin. The U.S. has signed deportation agreements with multiple third-party nations to host deportees when immediate repatriation is not feasible. South Sudan appears to be among the newer partners in this arrangement, despite its ongoing state of humanitarian emergency and political instability.
The legal precedent set by this case is likely to have long-term implications. It may empower the federal government to deport more individuals with final removal orders to third countries without the previously required burden of demonstrating that such removals are safe or humane. Critics argue this practice not only endangers the lives of deportees but potentially violates international human rights standards.
Civil liberties groups have warned that fast-track deportations circumvent the right to challenge dangerous transfers and that sending immigrants to unstable regions could lead to death, persecution, or permanent displacement. Immigration attorneys also worry that the precedent will be disproportionately applied to individuals from countries with complicated or severed diplomatic ties with the U.S.
The Biden administration has, in other cases, rolled back Trump-era immigration policies but has selectively retained certain enforcement mechanisms, including expedited removal protocols. This case highlights the administration’s willingness to follow through on complex and controversial removals under the guise of legal finality and national security.
For now, the eight men have arrived in South Sudan, a country they have no clear ties to, and where their future remains uncertain. Human rights monitors are calling for follow-up to ensure their safety and access to support services. Whether this moment represents an isolated case or a broader policy shift remains to be seen.
More on US News
Supreme Court Backs Deportation Supreme Court Backs Deportation
