
Judge briefly blocks immigrants' deportation to South Sudan after Supreme Court cleared the way
District Judge Randolph Moss sent the case north from Washington after an extraordinary Fourth of July hearing on Friday afternoon. He concluded that the judge best equipped to deal with the issues was Brian Murphy, the one whose rulings led to the initial halt of the Trump administration's effort to begin deportations to the eastern African country.
He extended his order halting the deportation until 4:30 p.m. Eastern time, but it was unclear whether Murphy would act on the federal holiday to further limit the removal. Moss said new claims by the immigrants' lawyers deserved a hearing.
The administration has been trying to deport the immigrants for weeks. None are from South Sudan, which is enmeshed in civil war and where the U.S government advises no one should travel before making their own funeral arrangements. The government flew them to the U.S. Naval Base at Djibouti but couldn't move them further because Murphy had ruled no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a chance to have a court hearing.
The Supreme Court vacated that decision last month, then Thursday night issued a new order clarifying that that meant the immigrants could be moved to South Sudan. Lawyers for the immigrants, who hail from Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam and other countries, filed an emergency request to halt their removal later that night.
The case was assigned to Moss, who briefly barred the administration from moving the immigrants from Djibouti to South Sudan until his afternoon hearing concluded. He slightly extended that bar after he sent the case to Murphy. The administration has said it expected to fly the immigrants to South Sudan sometime Friday.
The temporary stay was first reported by legal journalist Chris Geidner.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Trump news at a glance: President rings in Independence Day by signing his ‘big, beautiful' bill into law
Donald Trump kicked off Independence Day by signing into law his sweeping tax and spending bill during a Fourth of July picnic at the White House. The president's signature legislation, which he called the 'big, beautiful bill', introduces major changes including tax cuts, spending boosts for defence and more aggressive funding for an immigration crackdown. Trump says the changes will spur economic growth, but Democrats described the passage of the bill as a 'dark day' for the nation, warning it will benefit the wealthy and hit low-income earners the hardest. Here are the key US politics stories at a glance. The president signed his sweeping spending package into law on Friday during a Fourth of July picnic at the White House, significantly cutting back on federal safety-net programs and increasing funds for aggressive immigration enforcement. During the picnic Donald Trump gloated about the bill's passing. 'It's the most popular bill ever signed in the history of the country,' Trump said, while standing next to his wife, Melania Trump. 'What we've done is put everything into one bill. We've never had anything like that before.' Read the full story Democrats have erupted in a storm of outrage over the passage of Trump's budget bill, delivering scathing critiques that offered signs of the attack lines the party could wield against Republicans in next year's midterm elections. Democratic leaders released a wave of statements reflecting their fury after the sweeping bill's passage on Thursday. Read the full story The president of El Salvador has denied claims that Kilmar Ábrego García was subjected to beatings and deprivation while he was held in a notorious prison before being returned to the US to face human-smuggling charges. Nayib Bukele said in a social media post that Ábrego García, the Salvadorian national who was wrongly extradited from the US to El Salvador in March before being returned in June, 'wasn't tortured, nor did he lose weight'. Read the full story A federal judge has briefly halted the deportations of eight immigrants to war-torn South Sudan, the latest twist in a case that came hours after the supreme court cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport the men to a country where almost none of them have ties. Read the full story A group of Florida lawmakers were denied entry on Thursday into the new Florida-based immigration jail dubbed 'Alligator Alcatraz', one day after the first immigrant detainees began to arrive. Read the full story Donald Trump spoke with Ukraine's president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, on Friday as the US president appears increasingly disheartened over his chances of fulfilling a campaign pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Read the full story 'Catastrophic' flood in Texas kills at least 13, including children, with more missing from summer camp. Joey Chestnut regains title in New York hotdog eating contest. Lost Thomas Jefferson letter on arms and democracy resurfaces for Fourth of July sale. Catching up? Here's what happened 3 July 2025.

Leader Live
3 hours ago
- Leader Live
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.


Powys County Times
3 hours ago
- Powys County Times
Palestine Action terror ban comes into force after late-night legal action fails
A ban against Palestine Action has come into force, designating it as a terror group after a late-night legal bid to delay it failed. It makes membership of, or support for, the direct action group a criminal offence punishable by up to 14 years in prison. The move to ban the organisation was announced after two Voyager aircraft were damaged at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire on June 20, an incident claimed by Palestine Action, which police said caused around £7 million worth of damage. In response to the ban, a group of around 20 people are set to gather and sit in front of the Gandhi statue in London's Parliament Square on Saturday afternoon, according to campaign group Defend Our Juries. They will hold signs saying: 'I oppose genocide. I support Palestine Action.' The newly proscribed group lost a late-night Court of Appeal challenge on Friday to temporarily stop it being banned, less than two hours before the move came into force at midnight. Earlier that day Huda Ammori, the group's co-founder, unsuccessfully asked the High Court to temporarily block the Government from designating the group as a terrorist organisation, before a potential legal challenge against the decision to proscribe it under the Terrorism Act 2000. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced plans to proscribe Palestine Action on June 23, stating that the vandalism of the two planes was 'disgraceful' and that the group had a 'long history of unacceptable criminal damage'. MPs in the Commons voted 385 to 26, majority 359, in favour of proscribing the group on Wednesday, before the House of Lords backed the move without a vote on Thursday. Four people – Amy Gardiner-Gibson, 29, Jony Cink, 24, Daniel Jeronymides-Norie, 36, and Lewis Chiaramello, 22 – have all been charged in connection with the incident. They appeared at Westminster Magistrates' Court on Thursday after being charged with conspiracy to enter a prohibited place knowingly for a purpose prejudicial to the safety or interests of the United Kingdom, and conspiracy to commit criminal damage, under the Criminal Law Act 1977. Lawyers for Ms Ammori took her case to the Court of Appeal on Friday evening, and in a decision given at around 10.30pm, refused to grant the temporary block. Raza Husain KC, for Ms Ammori, made a bid to have the case certified as a 'point of general public importance' to allow a Supreme Court bid, but the Lady Chief Justice Baroness Carr said they would not get to the Supreme Court before midnight. The judge added that any application should be made before 4pm on Monday and refused a bid to pause the ban coming into effect pending any Supreme Court bid. In an 11-page written judgment, Baroness Carr, Lord Justice Lewis and Lord Justice Edis said: 'The role of the court is simply to interpret and apply the law. 'The merits of the underlying decision to proscribe a particular group is not a matter for the court…Similarly, it is not a matter for this court to express any views on whether or not the allegations or claims made by Palestine Action are right or wrong.' They also said: 'People may only be prosecuted and punished for acts they engaged in after the proscription came into force.' In his decision refusing the temporary block, High Court judge Mr Justice Chamberlain said: 'I have concluded that the harm which would ensue if interim relief is refused but the claim later succeeds is insufficient to outweigh the strong public interest in maintaining the order in force.' Blinne Ni Ghralaigh KC, for Ms Ammori, told the Court of Appeal that the judge wrongly decided the balance between the interests of her client and the Home Office when deciding whether to make the temporary block. She said: 'The balance of convenience on the evidence before him, in our respectful submission, fell in favour of the claimant having regard to all of the evidence, including the chilling effect on free speech, the fact that people would be criminalised and criminalised as terrorists for engaging in protest that was not violent, for the simple fact that they were associated with Palestine Action.' She also told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain 'failed properly to consider' that banning the group 'would cause irreparable harm'. Ms Ni Ghralaigh said: 'There was significant evidence before him to demonstrate the chilling effect of the order because it was insufficiently clear.' She continued that the ban would mean 'a vast number of individuals who wished to continue protesting would fall foul of the proscription regime due to its lack of clarity'. Ben Watson KC, for the Home Office, told the Court of Appeal that Mr Justice Chamberlain gave a 'detailed and careful judgment' and that the judge was 'alive' to the possible impacts of the ban, including the potential 'chilling effect' on free speech.