US supreme court clears way for deportation of migrants to South Sudan
The decision comes after the court's conservative majority found that immigration officials can quickly deport people to third countries. The majority halted an order that had allowed immigrants to challenge any removals to countries outside their homeland where they could be in danger.
The court's latest order makes clear that the South Sudan flight detoured weeks ago can now complete the trip. It reverses findings from federal Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts, who said his order on those migrants still stands even after the high court lifted his broader decision.
The majority wrote that their decision on 23 June completely halted Murphy's ruling and also rendered his decision on the South Sudan flight 'unenforceable'. The court did not fully detail its legal reasoning on the underlying case, as is common on its emergency docket.
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, saying the ruling gives the government special treatment. 'Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the supreme court on speed dial,' Sotomayor wrote.
Attorneys for the eight migrants have said they could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' if sent to South Sudan, where escalating political tensions have threatened to devolve into another civil war.
'We know they'll face perilous conditions, and potentially immediate detention, upon arrival,' Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, said Thursday.
The push comes amid a sweeping immigration crackdown by Trump's Republican administration, which has pledged to deport millions of people who are living in the United States illegally. The Trump administration has called Murphy's finding 'a lawless act of defiance.'
The White House and Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment.
Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities cannot quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of serious crimes in the US.
Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic president Joe Biden, did not prohibit deportations to third countries. But he found migrants must have a real chance to argue they could be in danger of torture if sent to another country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
It's a stain on US democracy that you can vote a fortnight after election day
Illinois doesn't have the best reputation when it comes to clean elections. The mere mention of the state conjures up memories of Chicago's notorious machine politics under the Daley family, and its sway over the 1960 presidential election. But now the Supreme Court has decided to consider a more recent stain against the state's name. In its next session, it has said that it will hear a case challenging Illinois' practice of counting mail-in ballots (known in other countries as postal votes) that arrive up to 14 days after election day. At stake is the integrity of the democratic process and the reasonable expectation that elections, like any competition governed by rules, should not be open to abuse. The case stems from a challenge by Representative Michael Bost (R-Ill), joined by two presidential electors, to an Illinois law that permits mail ballots to be counted even if they arrive up to two weeks after election day. A panel of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the challenge on the grounds of standing. But that was a procedural evasion of a question that demands substantive resolution: can we sustain trust in democratic outcomes while tolerating policies that might allow those outcomes to be perverted? Sixteen states plus the District of Columbia currently allow the counting of absentee ballots that arrive late, in most cases so long as they are postmarked by election day. And it's not a typical red state, blue state problem. Like Illinois, Utah also allows these votes to trickle in for up to 14 days. Maryland and Alaska allow 10. Maybe Alaska, given its geographical challenges, should get a pass. But not the other states. California and New York offer a full week for ballots to arrive after election day. Washington State, remarkably, doesn't even specify an arrival deadline – an open-ended invitation to confusion and loss of trust. The defenders of such policies claim that they improve access to voting. When they are criticised, they tend to respond hysterically that stopping them will end up disenfranchising voters. That's absurd. In most western democracies, mail ballots must arrive on election day or before. Also, the United States is uncommon in the world for its 'no-excuse' absentee voting, meaning that someone doesn't have to be out of their voting area or physically unable to vote in person in order to qualify. Voting is a right. Voting by post is a convenience. The distinction is not semantic. Rights are God-given, immutable, and must be protected. Conveniences, even useful ones, are conditional. The wholly reasonable suggestion here is that, if citizens choose to vote by mail, they should bear the responsibility of ensuring their ballot arrives by election day. In Mississippi, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that counting ballots after election day is illegal under federal law. This is not radicalism; it is order. The sooner all states move in this direction, the better. Consider what's at risk. Every late-counted vote has the potential to become, in the public mind, a vote that could be questioned. Certainly, a losing politician has every incentive to cast it as such. Every additional day of counting invites suspicion that the process is not being conducted fairly, especially in a country where almost one-third of voters already doubt the fairness of elections, according to a Pew Research Survey. Thus, timely vote-counting is not merely administrative housekeeping, it's about legitimacy. President Donald Trump's executive order on election integrity in March directed the Department of Justice to take appropriate legal action against states that count ballots arriving after election day for federal elections. It also proposes tying federal election funding to compliance with this standard. An election is not a season – it is a day. Election day is known in advance. It does not sneak up on the electorate. The ability to mail a ballot on time is not an undue burden; it is a modest civic expectation. If a voter can't manage that deadline, then perhaps in-person early voting or election day voting is the more reliable option. The Supreme Court, when it takes this case in the term beginning this October, has the opportunity to restore a sorely needed sense of boundaries. Trust in democracy begins not when the last ballot arrives, but when the last valid ballot is counted – on time.
Reuters
41 minutes ago
- Reuters
Power cut to Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant; Kyiv blames Russian strike
VIENNA, July 4 (Reuters) - All external power lines supplying electricity to the Russian-occupied Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant in Ukraine were down on Friday, the U.N. nuclear watchdog said, and Ukraine blamed Russian shelling for severing the last power line. Europe's biggest nuclear power plant, which is not operating but still requires power to keep its nuclear fuel cool, has switched to running on diesel generators, the International Atomic Energy Agency said. The IAEA has repeatedly warned of the risk of a catastrophic accident at Zaporizhzhia, which is located near the front line in the war in Ukraine. Its six reactors are shut down, but the nuclear fuel inside them still needs to be cooled, which requires constant power. "Ukraine's ZNPP lost all off-site power at 17:36 today, 9th time during military conflict and first since late 2023," the IAEA said on X. "The ZNPP currently relies on power from its emergency diesel generators, underlining (the) extremely precarious nuclear safety situation." Ukraine's energy minister, German Galuschenko, wrote on Telegram that a Russian strike had cut the plant off. "The enemy struck the power line connecting the temporarily occupied (Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Plant) with the integrated power system of Ukraine." Neither the IAEA nor the plant's Russian-installed management initially cited a cause for the cut-off. "The reasons for the disconnection are being clarified. The equipment at the station is in a safe state and under the control of staff. No violations of safety conditions have been noted," the Russia-installed management said.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Khan ‘dodges questions' about London because he was cooking lunch
Sir Sadiq Khan has been accused of dodging questions about London to attend a lunch promoting his tour of Africa. The London Mayor missed a meeting about his attempt to pedestrianise Oxford Street, choosing instead to visit a Nigerian restaurant. As the London Assembly voted not to block his proposals, Sir Sadiq was helping to cook traditional dishes at The Flygerians in Peckham, south London. It comes ahead of his five-day tour of Ghana, Nigeria and South Africa later this month. But during the London Assembly debate, Susan Hall, the leader of the City Hall Conservatives, criticised Sir Sadiq's no-show. Ms Hall said: 'Apparently, the Mayor is at a Nigerian restaurant. I hope is enjoying his Jollof pot. He is far more interested in Lagos than he is in John Lewis.' When asked why he would not be able to answer questions earlier on Thursday, Sir Sadiq replied: 'I suspect I'm busy with other things.' Sir Sadiq will become the first Mayor of London to lead a trade delegation to Africa after details of his wish to visit emerged last year. Speaking after the launch event, he vowed to 'bang the drum for further investment' and 'strengthen the cultural ties' with the three nations. 'Londoners of African heritage have played, and continue to play, a huge role in making London the greatest city in the world,' he said. 'It was great to be at The Flygerians today speaking with business owners and seeing first-hand the impact they make here in the capital, building a better London for everyone.' Sir Sadiq wants to ban vehicles from a stretch of road between Oxford Circus and Marble Arch. He previously attempted to pedestrianise the same part of Oxford Street, the UK's most famous high street, in 2018. However, he was blocked from doing so by Westminster city council when it was under Tory control. Whether his newest proposals succeed will depend on whether Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, allows him to establish a new mayoral development corporation. The body would have extensive planning powers of its own and could be created as soon as early 2026. Accused of 'arrogance' Sir Sadiq has insisted part-pedestrianisation is what the majority of Londoners would want, pointing to a YouGov survey last year showing almost two in three (63 per cent) were in favour. But he has been accused of 'arrogance' by Tory councillors over the scheme. Many local residents and businesses are also opposed on the grounds that it would only create gridlock elsewhere in central London. Westminster city council said it was working with Sir Sadiq on his newest pedestrianisation drive to 'ensure that the voices of residents and businesses are heard'. In the London Assembly this week, there was a cross-party call to build 'world-class' public toilets on Oxford Street as part of the mooted scheme.
