US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
The court on June 23 put on hold Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy's April 18 injunction requiring migrants set for removal to so-called "third countries" where they have no ties to get a chance to tell officials they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out.
The court on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that its June 23 decision also extended to Murphy's separate May 21 ruling that the administration had violated his injunction in attempting to send a group of migrants to South Sudan. The U.S. State Department has urged Americans to avoid the African nation "due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict."
The court said that Murphy should now "cease enforcing the April 18 injunction through the May 21 remedial order."
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from the decision, criticizing the court's actions.
"Today's order clarifies only one thing: Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial," Sotomayor wrote in a dissenting opinion.
Fellow liberal Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the court's decision to lift Murphy's injunction, nevertheless agreed with the majority on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote in a brief opinion.
Murphy's May 21 order mandating further procedures for the South Sudan-destined migrants prompted the U.S. government to keep the migrants at a military base in Djibouti. Murphy also clarified at the time that non-U.S. citizens must be given at least 10 days to raise a claim that they fear for their safety.
After the Supreme Court lifted Murphy's April injunction on June 23, the judge promptly ruled that his May 21 order "remains in full force and effect." Calling that ruling by the judge a "lawless act of defiance," the Justice Department the next day urged the Supreme Court to clarify that its action applied to Murphy's May 21 decision as well.
Murphy's ruling, the Justice Department said in court filings, has stalled its "lawful attempts to finalize the long-delayed removal of those aliens to South Sudan," and disrupted diplomatic relations.
Even as it accused the judge of defying the Supreme Court, the administration itself has been accused of violating judicial orders including in the third-country deportation litigation.
The administration has said its third-country policy is critical for removing migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back.
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. Sotomayor in a dissent called the court's June 23 decision pausing Murphy's injunction a "gross abuse" of its power that now exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death."
After the Department of Homeland Security moved in February to step up rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a group of migrants seeking to prevent their removal to such places without notice and a chance to assert the harms they could face.
In March, the administration issued guidance providing that if a third country has given credible diplomatic assurance that it will not persecute or torture migrants, individuals may be deported there "without the need for further procedures."
Murphy found that the administration's policy of "executing third-country removals without providing notice and a meaningful opportunity to present fear-based claims" likely violates due process requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions.
The Justice Department noted in a filing that the administration has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the aliens at issue will not be subject to torture."
The Supreme Court has let Trump implement some contentious immigration policies while the fight over their legality continues to play out. In two decisions in May, it let Trump end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work in the United States temporarily. The justices, however, faulted the administration's treatment of some migrants as inadequate under constitutional due process protections.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
What do police on the front line make of plans to stop the boats?
Nicolas Laroye, a veteran of France's border police, spent more than a decade patrolling the coast around Dunkirk in search of migrants. Now he shares the frustration of colleagues who have taken over what has become a near impossible task.'Of course we want to stop the migrants,' he said, as we sat in a cafe. 'But we know that they will keep trying and trying and that in the end they will all get through.'Times have changed since the days when those hoping to reach England lurked in small groups around the ports or the entrance to the Channel Tunnel hoping to stow away in the back of lorries. Back then, 20 years ago, there were far fewer of them and they always came quietly. 'In ten years I never experienced any violence. We didn't even need to handcuff them,' Laroye said. Now, most evenings, hundreds can gather at one of the wide beaches that line the 70-mile stretch of coast between Dunkirk and Boulogne-sur-Mer. Dozens are ready to board each dinghy, which often wait for them in shallow water: the so-called 'taxi boats'. When the police, often heavily outnumbered, try to intercept them, things can turn ugly in the time it takes reinforcements to come. 'Imagine a situation when you have 50 of them waiting to get on a boat,' said Laroye, 55, who for the past few years has been on secondment to Unsa, a police trade union. 'They have paid thousands of euros and can see the English coast in the distance in front of them, and three police officers turn up and try to stop them from getting on board. Often they will start pelting the police with stones. They have their shields but I know colleagues who have still got hurt. 'It can start when they are still walking down the road. Their aim isn't to hurt the officers. They just don't want to be stopped from getting to the beach.' Regular police — whether from the border force or units that are increasingly drafted in — are forbidden from speaking directly to the media. But they can make their feelings felt through Laroye and others seconded to the various police trade unions permitted to speak on their behalf. The impression they give is growing frustration among officers on the front line tasked with preventing migrants from crossing. There is also anger at accusations from Britain that they do not do enough to stop migrants, in part because of French operating procedures that have hitherto barred them from interfering with a boat once it is in the water, for fear of endangering those packed on board. Stopping the 'small boats' is certain to dominate President Macron's talks with Sir Keir Starmer during his state visit to Britain this week. The government appears to be pinning its hopes on plans by the French to change the rules, allowing officers to stop migrant dinghies even when they are at sea — provided they are within 300 metres of the coast. For this reason, Downing Street seized on footage shot by the BBC on Friday near Boulogne-sur-Mer showing police from the Compagnie de Marche, a specialist unit trained to deal with public disorder, charging into shallow water and slashing the sides of a dinghy. Onboard were dozens of scrambling migrants. No 10 called it a 'significant moment' that could have a 'major impact' on smuggling gangs. A further eight boats, carrying a total of 517 people, nevertheless made it successfully across the English Channel on that day alone, according to Home Office figures. This took the numbers so far this year to a new record of just over 20,000, a 50 per cent surge over the same period last year, despite Starmer's vow last July to 'smash the gangs' and 'stop the boats'. • Labour's first year: is Keir Starmer keeping his promises? The French interior ministry declined to confirm a change of tactics. A spokesman said six officers, 'detecting immediate danger', intervened at about 8.30am French time in a 'proportionate manner' to 'avoid any risk to the passengers', adding: 'No one was injured or required emergency care.' It followed a similar incident on June 13, further north near Gravelines, when two officers also from the Compagnie de Marche waded into waist-deep water to prevent migrants boarding a waiting 'taxi boat'. The local prefecture cited a 'need to safeguard human life', which it said 'takes precedence over all other considerations'. The scenes raised eyebrows among police themselves. 'Officers are weighed down with kilos of kit,' said Laroye. 'If they get knocked over by a wave they may not be able to get up.' Even the slightest drop of corrosive salt water will destroy the gun that French police routinely carry strapped to their waist. Authorities already appear to have been quietly changing their rules of engagement in recent years, according to French media reports, although it has failed to make a dent in the numbers. Internal memos issued by the maritime prefecture of the Channel and the North Sea dated November 2022 and 2023, seen by the television station TV1, authorise forces to intervene at sea to control 'taxi boats', provided they are less than 200 metres off the coast and do not carry more than than three people — presumably the smugglers waiting to pick migrants up. • The asylum seeker who became London's £12m migrant smuggler Police officers who will have to implement the new rules have poured cold water on British hopes that they will make a substantial difference. There is a difference between slashing a boat in shallow water and doing so 100, 200 or 300 metres out to sea, according to Julien Soir, a police officer and official with Alliance Nationale Police, a rival union. 'If we want to intervene in this 300-meter range, we would have to have enormous resources,' he explained. 'You need boats, you need people who are trained, you need a lot of things.' Officers also fear they could face prosecution if migrants die as a result of their intervention. 'If you intercept a taxi boat and make someone fall out and drown, then you as a policeman will be held responsible,' said Régis Debut, a colleague of Laroye's at Unsa. 'The charities would have a field day', he added, in reference to vocal groups that champion the interest of migrants. Meanwhile thousands of migrants, largely from the Middle East, Afghanistan and Africa, continue to arrive on the French Channel coast where they sleep rough while waiting to cross. Most evenings, around 7pm or 8pm, columns of people can be seen walking from one encampment near Gravelines, apparently on their way to a meeting point in the dunes behind the beach that has been given to them by the smugglers. Often they will take a bus from a terminal in front of the nearby out-of-town shopping centre. 'A whole group of them will get on and then suddenly get off at a stop in the middle of nowhere,' a driver waiting there said. The boats leave from a different point each evening as the traffickers, part of what — with crossings costing up to €5,000 per person — has become a major multimillion pound business, strive to stay one step ahead of the police. The next morning those that have failed make the journey back to their tents. I encountered one such group on Friday, clutching flimsy life jackets. 'The police stopped us just as we were trying to board,' said one angry Iranian man. Similar scenes are repeated up and down the coast. Others are picked up by police, either on the streets or on buses, and taken in to have their identity checked and nationality established. Many, though, are from countries that refuse to take back their citizens and so are then released, giving them the chance to attempt the crossing again. @Peter_Conradi
BBC News
5 hours ago
- BBC News
Uganda's Yoweri Museveni endorsed as 2026 presidential candidate by National Resistance Movement
Uganda's long-serving president, Yoweri Museveni, 80, has been declared the governing party's candidate in next year's presidential election, opening the way for him to seek to extend his nearly 40 years in power. In his acceptance speech, Museveni said that he had had responded to the call and, if elected, would press ahead with his mission to turn Uganda into a "high middle income country". Museveni's critics say he has ruled with an iron hand since he seized power as a rebel leader in 1986. He has won every election held since then, and the constitution has been amended twice to remove age and term limits to allow him remain in office. Pop star-turned-politician Bobi Wine is expected to be Museveni's main challenger in the election scheduled for next January. Wine told the BBC in April that he would run against Museveni if he was nominated by his party, the National Unity Platform, but it was getting "tougher" to be in opposition because of growing state repression."Being in the opposition in Uganda means being labelled a terrorist," he Wine, whose real name is Robert Kyagulanyi, lost the last election in 2021 to Museveni by 35% to 59% in a poll marred by allegations of rigging and a crackdown on the opposition. Another prominent opposition politician, Kizza Besigye, has been in detention since November after being accused of treason. He denies the allegation, saying his arrest is political. In his acceptance speech at the National Resistance Movement (NRM) conference on Saturday, Museveni said that he had brought about stability and progress in said it was crucial that Uganda did not "miss the bus of history as happened in the past when Europe transformed and Africa stagnated and was enslaved".Museveni added that he wanted Uganda to take a "qualitative leap", and become a "high upper middle income country"."Other countries in Asia with less natural resources, did it. We can do it," he added. You may also be interested in: Are East African governments uniting to silence dissent?How Besigye disappeared in Kenya and ended up in military courtHow an ex-rebel has stayed in power Go to for more news from the African us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica
The Herald Scotland
5 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Rushing Supreme Court trans judgement is likely to breach human rights
The commission rushed out an 'interim update' that lacked clarity, nuance, human rights considerations, nor the full range of what may be appropriate within the law. They opted for blanket exclusion of trans people – and rightly have faced considerable challenge. We then saw their public consultation on their draft Code – this too told only half of the likely legal story. It detailed how services could exclude trans people but not how they might remain inclusive, as per their human rights duties. We do not believe that the Supreme Court's ruling implies blanket exclusion; if it does, the law needs to be changed as soon as possible. Read More: The ruling said that 'sex', for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010, means 'biological sex'. It did not then follow this statement with 'and that means that trans women cannot access women's services.' It didn't even define biological sex, nor woman - other than when it is used in the provisions of the Equality Act. It did say, clearly, that trans women should not be subject to discrimination. The court also said that they had a 'more limited role which does not involve making policy.' Their ruling did not ascribe ANY policy changes. Organisations must follow the law, sure - but what does that look like in practice? There isn't certainty about what those changes should be that would mean people are indeed doing so. It is important that there is clarity on what the law really means in practice for all. The primary legal narrative being pushed by some is the one suggesting that all trans people should be segregated and / or that trans people should be barred from accessing services that they need. This is dangerous, seemingly ignorant of human rights obligations and an incomplete narrative. Though it may be fair for the commission to say that their final code cannot cover every service and every eventuality, it surely must enable people to make lawful decisions, and to decide whether they will or will not allow trans people to use services in line with who they are. We believe this can be done lawfully, but this part seems to be missing. At Equality Network we agree (even with those people with whom we profoundly disagree about what the changes should entail) that all organisations need to be operating within the law. We too are very aware that the law effectively 'changed' when the judges made their ruling. It of course turned previous understanding of how the Equality Act was meant to work with regards to trans people on its head. We, among thousands of others, were surprised at this new revelation - and apparent decades of misunderstanding and implementation. Despite the fact that it was a profound change to how people had previously understood the law to work, this change only applied to the question of whether trans people with gender recognition certificates (GRCs) (which is a tiny percentage of trans people) were to be considered as their birth sex for the purposes of the Equality Act. Prior to the judgment, people who had a GRC were believed to have changed their sex in the law (all law), and that sex was protected by the 'sex' part of the Equality Act. However, with sex now being understood for the purposes of the Act as 'biological sex', this is no longer the case. Though the court confirmed that trans people ARE still protected by Gender Reassignment (GR) protections. However, a much larger percentage of trans people do not have a GRC – these people are of course also still protected by GR protections within the Equality Act. Nothing here has changed following the ruling. Given that the huge majority of trans people, before the Supreme Court ruling, were already considered in the act to be their "biological sex", it isn't at all clear that there is now a legal requirement to exclude trans people from all services that align with their gender identities, nor force them to use only segregated spaces and /or services or spaces exclusively aligned with their 'biological sex' as recorded at birth. There wasn't this requirement before, and nothing has changed about that part of our understanding of how the law works. So while we totally agree that organisations should follow the law, it is patently obvious from the vast and various responses and debates among people of many stripes and flavours about what it means, that anyone who is selling certainty (and pushing demands for trans people to be excluded and segregated in all circumstances as what is actually required) is massively, and harmfully, overplaying their hand. Organisations are being pressured to change the way they operate to become less inclusive despite it being patently evident that this would be deeply harmful to trans people, and without alternative to better that situation. Many, rightly so, are in no rush to do that ahead of sight of complete finalised guidance that incorporates full and accurate information on how the law stands - and on how they might go about delivering their inclusive services within the law. The implications of the Supreme Court judgment, and the developing guidance on its implementation, will have a significant impact on the lives of trans people. This must be recognised and given due time and consideration. From some (loud and impatient) quarters there is a push to implement exclusionary practice now. But it remains unclear that the law allows or even supports that. We don't believe it does. As it stands, the draft code is unworkable and harmful. It details only how services can be exclusionary and asks, 'is that clear?' It is as clear as mud. We hope that it is fixed ahead of being laid at UK Parliament for approval. If it isn't, it will be necessary to clarify the law by adjusting the Equality Act. Otherwise, trans people are at serious risk of multiple breaches to their human rights to safety, dignity and privacy. We would hope for a code from our national equality and human rights body that considers the equalities and human rights of those most marginalised and details how services can cater for all whilst remaining lawful. If the Code doesn't do this, it is not doing its job, and nor is the commission. The Code of Practice consultation has only just closed, with over 50,000 responses in total. To analyse those properly will take time. In the meantime, despite what some may say, there is not legal clarity. To push for exclusionary implementation, with significant likelihood of harm, having not first analysed the responses to develop a comprehensive and legally holistic code, is deeply concerning. The commission should be supporting public bodies to carry out their responsibilities effectively and inclusively for everyone. Nobody, not even they, know yet how inconsistencies in the draft code are to be resolved, and how the code is to be made compatible with human rights requirements. Only with such an explanation will public bodies be in any position to responsibly 'follow the law'. Dr Rebecca Don Kennedy is chief executive of the Equality Network
