US judge briefly pauses deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan
-A federal judge briefly halted the Trump administration on Friday from placing eight migrants on a plane destined for conflict-ridden South Sudan, to give lawyers for the men time to make their argument to a court in Massachusetts.
U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington made the ruling at an emergency hearing on July 4, when courts are otherwise closed for the Independence Day holiday. The group of migrants had filed new claims on Thursday after the Supreme Court clarified that a federal judge in Boston could no longer require U.S. Department of Homeland Security to hold them.
The administration has detained the men for six weeks on a military base in Djibouti rather than bring back to the United States.
The order stops the U.S. government from moving the men until 4:30 p.m. Eastern Time. They were scheduled to be removed to South Sudan on a 7 p.m. flight.
The case is the latest development over the legality of the Trump administration's campaign to deter immigration by shipping migrants to locations other than their countries of origin pursuant to deals with other countries.
A lawyer for the U.S. said during the hearing that court orders halting agreed-upon deportations pose a serious problem for U.S. diplomatic relations and would make foreign countries less likely to accept transfers of migrants in the future. The group of men have been convicted of various crimes, with four of them convicted of murder, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security has said.
South Sudan has long been dangerous even for locals. The U.S. State Department advises citizens not to travel there due to violent crime and armed conflict. The United Nations has said the African country's political crisis could reignite a brutal civil war that ended in 2018.
The eight men, who their lawyers said are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan and Vietnam, argue their deportations to South Sudan would violate the U.S. constitution, which prohibits "cruel and unusual" punishment.
Moss said that he would transfer the case to Massachusetts rather than hear it himself, but remarked that if they proved their allegations about the motives of U.S. authorities, they would likely have a valid claim.
"It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical well-being is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others," Moss said during the hearing.
This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
18 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
HC rejects plea to call Mathura's Shahi Eidgah disputed structure
The Allahabad high court on Friday dismissed an application by Hindu petitioners asking that the Shahi Eidgah mosque in Mathura be referred to as a 'disputed structure' during the legal proceedings on the Krishna Janmabhoomi-Shahi Eidgah title dispute. The suits filed by Hindu litigants since 2022 seek the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque as well as restoration of the temple. (PTI) The controversy is related to the Mughal-era mosque at Mathura, which Hindu groups say was built by emperor Aurangzeb after demolishing a temple at the mythical birthplace of Lord Krishna. The suits filed by Hindu litigants since 2022 seek the removal of the Shahi Eidgah mosque as well as restoration of the temple. The Muslim side has rejected the petitions and said they are barred under the 1991 Places of Worship Act, which freezes the religious character of shrines as they were at the time of independence, barring the Ram Janmabhoomi-Babri Masjid dispute in Ayodhya. The Hindu petitioners asked the court to direct the stenographer to use word 'disputed structure' in place of order 'Shahi Idgah Mosque' during further proceedings of the suits and other connected matter. The Muslim side said it was an abuse of the process of the law. 'A bare perusal of the pleading of the parties in the suit reveals that there is dispute between the parties with regard to the site where Shahi Masjid Idgah is existing. Parties have claimed their respective title over suit property. Therefore, it may be termed as property in dispute,' said justice Ram Manohar Narain Mishra. 'In pleadings of the parties also, the structure in question is referred as Shahi Masjid Idgah and at this stage, where hearing of the suits is yet to commence and even issues have not been framed, it is neither desirable nor expedient to issue any direction to stenographer, as prayed by the applicants, to refer Shahi Masjid Idgah in judgments and orders as 'disputed structure',' the judge added. 'There is no dispute with regard to identity of property in suit, therefore, the prayer made in the application A-44 cannot be granted at this stage.' Mahendra Pratap Singh, a lawyer from Mathura who moved this application, said that legal experts will be consulted and the order will be analysed. 'We will challenge the order in the Supreme Court after consultation,' said Singh, adding that the order dismissing the application to term the Shahi Eidgah Masjid as a disputed structure will not harm the original suit. Meanwhile, secretary for Shahi Eidgah Masjid management committee and its counsel Tanveer Ahmed welcomed the order and said, 'Justice has been done.' 'Regular namaz is held at the mosque till date and has a separate access. So, there is no dispute. This cannot be called a disputed site,' said Ahmed, adding that the petitioners are wasting the court's time. The Hindu side had submitted that the Shahi Idgah mosque was constructed on the site historically recognised as the birthplace of Lord Krishna. The site holds immense religious significance for Hindus, they argued. But the Muslim side argued that the mosque was in existence for the last 400 years and its existence was sought to be undermined by the present application, which was not permissible under law. Allowing the present application will amount to pre- determination that the Shahi Masjid Idgah is not a mosque at an early stage, the Muslim side said. The religious dispute simmered in the first half of the 20th century but a 1968 agreement calmed tempers. On October 12, 1968, an agreement was signed between the Shri Krishna Janmasthan Seva Sansthan and the Shahi Masjid Idgah Trust, which divided the land between the two parties and relinquished any claims of the Hindu parties to the land of the mosque. But the Hindu side's petition challenged the settlement and alleged that the pact had no legal validity because the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust, which the petitioners claimed had the ownership and title of the land, was not party to the settlement. The Hindi suit claimed that Shahi Eidgah Masjid was constructed on a part of 13.37-acre land belonging to the Sri Krishna Janmabhoomi Trust. They demanded the mosque, which abuts the temple, be removed and the land returned to the trust because it is the mythical birthplace of Lord Krishna. The Allahabad high court on December 14, 2023 directed the appointment of a court commissioner to supervise the survey of the mosque premises. However, the Supreme Court on January 16, 2024 stayed implementation of the December 14, 2023 order. The case is part of a decades-old ideological project by Hindu groups that argue that medieval-era Islamic structures were built by demolishing temples and demand rights over those structures. Cases by Hindu groups and individuals in Varanasi and Mathura are currently being adjudicated in courts across Uttar Pradesh, even as a larger issue relating to the Place of Worship (Special Provisions) Act, 1991 is being heard by the Supreme Court.
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
SC issues notice on plea seeking enforcement of 27% OBC law in MP
The Supreme Court on Friday issued notice on a fresh petition seeking enforcement of a Madhya Pradesh law providing 27% reservation to the other backward classes (OBC) in state employment but refused to pass any interim directions noticing that the matter is already pending in the top court. SC issues notice on plea seeking enforcement of 27% OBC law in MP A bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan, sitting during the partial court working days, passed the order seeking response of the Madhya Pradesh government on a petition filed by 18 people belonging to the OBC community, led by petitioner Nishchay Sonbirse. The petition argued by advocate Varun Thakur pointed out that in 2019, the MP government brought amendment to the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, increasing reservation benefits in jobs for OBCs from the existing 14% to 27%. Thakur said that prior to enactment of the Act, the same law was introduced by way of an Ordinance that was challenged before the MP high court by a final-year MBBS student. On her plea, an interim order was passed on March 19, 2019 directing that the counselling for NEET-PG examination of 2019 will be conducted as per the old law providing for 14% OBC reservation. He stated that despite the Ordinance becoming law, the interim order has been continued by the executive arm of the state without there being any stay or interim order passed by either the high court or the top court. The bench said, 'We are not going to grant you any interim order. Very reluctantly we are issuing notice. We will only post the matter along with the batch of matters pending before this court.' In 2022, the state of Madhya Pradesh had filed a transfer petition before the top court. Subsequently by an order of the court, all petitions pending before the high court stood transferred to the top court where the matter is still pending. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta appearing for the state opposed the petition pointing out that already the issue is under consideration in the transfer petition filed by the state. He questioned the need for adding yet another petition to the bunch of cases where the validity of the law has been challenged. Thakur pointed out that the pending batch of cases only challenge the Ordinance. However, the Act has not been challenged so far. However, lawyers appearing in the matter refuted this claim pointing out that even the 2019 Act by the state introducing 27% reservation for OBC in public employment is pending before the top court. Thakur said that the implementation of the 2019 amendment remains uncertain and sought a clarification from the court giving effect to the law. The petition filed by him said, 'The legislation has neither been struck down nor declared unconstitutional by any court of law. In fact, no interim order has been passed by this court or the high court of Madhya Pradesh for restraining enforcement of the law.' He stated that the operation of the statutory provision cannot be stultified by granting an interim order except when the court is fully convinced that the particular enactment is unconstitutional. He questioned the executive for not acting upon the legislation in the absence of any order restraining them from doing so.
Hindustan Times
19 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Undressing woman for sexual assault amounts to attempt to rape: Allahabad HC
The Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court has observed that undressing a woman in a bid to rape her amounts to the offence of attempt to rape under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court noted that it was proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with the intention of raping her. (REPRESENTATIVE IMAGE) Justice Rajnish Kumar passed the judgment on July 1, rejecting an appeal filed by a convict in the offence of attempt to rape a victim. Since the case is from 2004, it was decided as per IPC and now the appeal has been adjudicated by the high court. Also Read | Kolkata gang rape: Crime scene reconstruction done over 4 hours as accused taken to law college In this case, one Pradeep Kumar in 2004 had forcibly abducted the victim and kept her confined to a house for nearly 20 days. Later, he had attempted to rape her by undressing her. He was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. The convict had filed an appeal against the verdict but the high court upheld the decision of the trial court. The prosecution had alleged that the accused Pradeep Kumar forcibly took the victim in a van, confined her to a relative's house for about 20 days and during that time, he undressed her and attempted to sexually assault her. However, he failed to commit the offence of rape due to her resistance, the prosecution added. The court noted that it was proved by the prosecution that the victim was forcibly kidnapped by the appellant with the intention of raping her. Also Read | Pune techie's rape accused was her friend; she took selfie, typed threat: Police 'He with the said motive kept her at the residence of his relative for about 20 days, where he not only outraged the modesty of the victim but also attempted rape by undressing her. However, he could not commit intercourse on account of her protest. The victim has stated that the appellant had done bad work with her. The victim reiterated and supported the statement given under Section 164 CrPC before the magistrate in her evidence during trial also,' the court observed. The court relied on several Supreme Court judgments in which it was held that the removal of the victim's clothes by the accused constitutes an attempt to rape. Also Read | 'Forced to undergo sex change' by friend, man alleges rape, extortion, 'black magic' in MP It also dismissed the appellant's contention that the delay in filing the complaint weakened the prosecution's case, noting that the delay had been adequately explained. The high court further rejected the argument that the accused was falsely implicated due to enmity, stating that the appellant had failed to substantiate this claim.
