Deportation Controversy: Judge Rebukes Trump Administration for Violating Court Order in South Sudan Case

In a sharp rebuke to the Trump administration's hardline immigration policy, a Boston federal judge on May 22, 2025, held that the U.S. government defied a court order by trying to deport eight migrants to South Sudan, a war-torn country to which most of them have no nationality. District Judge Brian E. Murphy's ruling is the most recent confrontation between the executive branch and the judiciary, setting high-level tensions between due process and the human cost of expeditious deportations. This event, based on a flight that departed from Texas on May 20, 2025, has outraged immigration activists, left many questioning the administration's methods, and highlighted the vulnerable status of migrants who find themselves in the firing line of policy and politics.

The Incident: A Flight to South Sudan
On May 20, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put eight migrants—originating from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan—on a government-chartered flight, reported to be heading to South Sudan. The individuals, according to court documents, were alerted to their deportation less than 24 hours ahead of time, with a few of them receiving the notices in English, a language they hardly spoke. Immigration lawyers, including those with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, were caught off guard and only heard of the deportations after their clients had left. One lawyer, Jonathan Ryan, explained his client, who is named only "N.M.," as having been "disappeared" by the government with no one able to tell him where he was.

The destination of the plane, South Sudan, threw up red flags the moment it was named. The U.S. State Department has issued a “do not travel” advisory for the country due to ongoing armed conflict, ethnic violence, and a severe humanitarian crisis. South Sudan, the world’s newest nation, has been plagued by instability since its independence in 2011, with a civil war from 2013 to 2018 killing tens of thousands and displacing millions. The nation sits on the edge of escalating conflict as of 2025, which makes it a disturbing option for deportations, particularly for non-citizens who have no nexus to the area.

President Biden appointee Judge Murphy had issued a preliminary injunction on April 18, 2025, preventing the Trump administration from deporting immigrants to third-party nations—countries other than their own—without giving them a "meaningful opportunity" to contest their deportation. The injunction was based on the Fifth Amendment's due process clause and the global Convention Against Torture, which bars expelling people to nations where they would be at a credible risk for persecution or torture. Murphy's order mandated adequate notice, representation by counsel, and opportunity to present safety issues prior to being deported. South Sudan flight, though, disregarded these provisions, with migrants receiving as little as 12 hours' notice and zero viable access to attorneys or interpreters.

The Court's Response: A Judicial Rebuke
In an emergency hearing held on May 21, 2025, Judge Murphy was appalled by the actions of the administration, avowing that the deportations were "unquestionably violative" of his April injunction. He observed that the hertictic timeline—late at night notifications, frequently after office hours—was "impossible" for the migrants to protest against their removal or seek legal advice. In one instance, an unforeseen notice was received by one Burmese migrant with one notice stating "deportation to South Africa," followed by another with "deportation to one South Sudan," where no reasons were given for the change. Another migrant’s wife reported that her Vietnamese husband and others were flown to Africa against their will, despite court orders specifying deportation to their countries of origin.

Murphy ordered DHS to maintain custody of the deportees, ensuring they could be returned to the U.S. if their removals were deemed unlawful. He also ordered interviews to determine whether the migrants had a "reasonable fear" of persecution in South Sudan, which would require at least 72 hours' notice, access to legal counsel, and interpreters. In the future, he directed that migrants who are subject to third-country deportations should be given at least 10 days to raise concerns about safety and 15 days to reopen their immigration cases if needed. Offenders, he cautioned, risked civil or criminal contempt charges.

The judge declined to order the plane to turn around immediately, instead leaving it to DHS to sort out the "practicalities of compliance.". Flight tracking information indicated the aircraft touched down in Djibouti, close to an American naval base, instead of South Sudan, although DHS would not officially confirm the destination for reasons of "safety and operational security." A police spokesperson for South Sudan, Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, said no migrants had yet entered the country and that any foreigners would be questioned and "redeported to their proper country."
The Trump administration justified the deportations, casting the migrants as "uniquely barbaric monsters" who were convicted of heinous crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery. During a May 21 press conference, DHS press secretary Tricia McLaughlin and acting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Director Todd Lyons showed mugshots of the deportees, highlighting their criminal histories and claiming that their countries of origin are refusing them—Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and South Sudan. If we can't have a country that will accept their citizens back, then we have a measure to find a safe third country," Lyons explained, calling the deportations a "military and diplomatic security operation."

McLaughlin blamed "activist judges" for compromising national security and ICE officers' safety and said the administration was "in full compliance" with the law. She contended that the migrants had been accorded due process, albeit without any detail about how or when. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was equally agreeable, denouncing Murphy's ruling as a roadblock to Trump's agenda on immigration. On Truth Social, President Trump himself let loose, labeling judges "out of control" and stating Murphy "knew absolutely nothing about the situation."

Critics, nonetheless, contend that the administration's rhetoric exaggerates the fear of criminality by immigrants in order to justify the policies. Immigration supporters note that even those with criminal histories are due process under U.S. law and that deporting them to a war-torn country like South Sudan threatens international human rights commitments.
A Pattern of Defiance

This is not an isolated episode. The Trump administration has been repeatedly rebuked by courts for ignoring court orders regarding deportations. Earlier this month, Murphy thwarted the effort to deport migrants to Libya, another volatile country, on similar grounds of due process violations. In another case, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., concluded "probable cause" to hold the officials in contempt for deporting suspected Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador without proper notice. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a May 16 ruling, also blocked Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations of Venezuelans, citing insufficient due process.

A high-profile instance is Kilmar Abrego García, a Maryland resident who was wrongly deported to El Salvador despite an order from the court enjoining his removal. To date, as of late May 2025, he is still incarcerated there, with the Supreme Court directing the administration to bring him back. These instances reflect a larger trend of the administration balancing speed at the expense of legality, frequently circumventing constitutional safeguards as well as court orders.

The Bigger Picture: Immigration Policy and Human Rights
The South Sudan deportation scandal highlights the conflict between the Trump administration's effort to impose large-scale deportations and the judiciary's function to ensure due process. Trump ran on an enforcement immigration policy, vowing to get rid of "illegal aliens" quickly. In an effort to bypass nations that will not take back their citizens, the administration has pursued "safe third country" agreements with countries such as Panama, Rwanda, and possibly others, invoking moral concerns about relocating migrants to destinations that have reported human rights abuses.

For immigration activists, the South Sudan flight is a bleak illustration of the human toll of such policies. "These individuals were deliberately chosen by the government in an effort to distract people from their blatant disrespect for a federal court order," said Jonathan Ryan, insisting that due process is owed to all, no matter their criminal record. The transparency gap—DHS's withholding of the flight's destination and migrants' status—has contributed to charges of "disappearing" detainees, keeping families and attorneys in suspense.

Instability in South Sudan creates another area of concern. The nation has a food crisis that harms almost two out of every three of its 11 million people, widespread ethnic violence, and a tenuous peace deal that is on the verge of breaking down. Sending non-citizens there, particularly without proper screening, might subject them to persecution, torture, or death—results the U.S. has a legal obligation to avoid under international law.

What's Next?
Judge Murphy's decision creates a precedent for closer monitoring of third-country deportations, with express notice and legal access requirements. But the administration's defiance implies continued legal skirmishes. Murphy left the door open to contempt proceedings, which could make the tensions between the judiciary and executive legions. Meanwhile, the future of the eight deportees hangs in the balance, with DHS charged with conducting fear-based interviews, either overseas or in the United States, to assess their eligibility for humanitarian protection.

For the public, the controversy is raising some key questions: How aggressive can the government be in carrying out deportations without crossing legal and moral boundaries? And what does it mean for a country to be respecting the rule of law when its policy has the potential to put lives in harm's way? As the Trump administration continues its crackdown on immigration, the courts will likely be a battleground, with judges like Murphy serving as bulwarks of constitutional guarantees.

If you’re following this issue, stay tuned for updates. The fight over immigration policy is far from over, and its human stakes couldn’t be higher.