US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
(Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration on Thursday in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan.
Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the decision a "win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people" and said the men would "be in South Sudan" by Friday.
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 be given a chance to tell officials that they are at risk of torture there, while a legal challenge plays out.
The justices on Thursday granted a Justice Department request to clarify that their 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."
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority.
"The Supreme Court's ruling rewards the government for violating the injunction and delaying implementation of the remedy the district court ordered," said Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which helps represent the plaintiffs.
"Eight men are now at imminent risk of deportation to perilous and unsafe conditions in South Sudan," Realmuto said.
Two liberal justices, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented from Thursday's decision.
"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 decision on Thursday. "I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed," Kagan wrote.
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.
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 judge'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.
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.
'CLEAR REBUKE'
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.
"Today's decision makes clear it is district court judges who are defying Supreme Court orders, not the Trump administration. This decision is a clear rebuke of such judicial overreach," White House David Warrington said on Thursday.
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."
The Justice Department said in a filing that the United States has received credible diplomatic assurances from South Sudan that the migrants 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
Business Insider
an hour ago
- Business Insider
US court clears deportation of 8 migrants to South Sudan despite legal fight
Eight migrants are now set to be deported to South Sudan after a US court denied their final legal bid to remain in the United States, following a series of emergency court proceedings held during the Independence Day holiday. A US judge has denied the final legal attempt to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan The migrants' attorneys argued that deporting them to volatile South Sudan constitutes unconstitutional punishment given the country's ongoing instability. The deportations align with a broader immigration policy expansion initiated during the Trump administration targeting repatriations to conflict zones. South Sudan is currently plagued by political unrest and violent conflict, prompting international warnings against travel to the region. The decision came on Friday, July 4, after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy ruled that he was bound by a recent Supreme Court order, which had earlier clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could no longer be barred from deporting the men. The ruling effectively ended the migrants' last-ditch effort to stop the deportation, allowing the U.S. government to proceed with its scheduled transfer of the individuals to South Sudan at 7:00 p.m. Eastern Time the same day. Lawyers representing the migrants had argued that deporting them to South Sudan, a country long plagued by violent conflict and political instability amounted to unconstitutional punishment, especially since some had already served criminal sentences in the U.S. However, Judge Murphy ruled that their claims were 'substantially similar' to previous ones he had already rejected. Before the ruling in Boston, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington briefly paused the deportation effort earlier that afternoon. But he ultimately returned the matter to Murphy, who affirmed that the Supreme Court's guidance left him no legal ground to intervene. Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney with the Seattle Clemency Project who represented the men, expressed disappointment with the outcome. ' Both courts' decisions today have denied them their opportunity to have these claims heard and to protect their own lives,' she said. ' That is what is so tragic about where we came out. ' Trump's third‑country deportations Trump's third-country deportation policy began in his first term with deals to send asylum seekers to Central American nations like Guatemala, even if they weren't from there. In his second term, the policy expanded to include deportations to conflict zones like South Sudan and Libya. These moves targeted migrants whose home countries refused repatriation. Critics argue the policy violates due process and international law, while the Supreme Court has allowed it to proceed, marking a sharp turn toward harsher immigration enforcement. South Sudan, the destination for the deportation, remains volatile. The U.S. State Department currently warns against travel to the country due to armed conflict and high levels of violent crime. The United Nations has also cautioned that the region's unresolved political tensions risk reigniting a devastating civil war that formally ended in 2018. The Department of Homeland Security has stated that the migrants who come from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan, and Vietnam include individuals previously convicted of serious crimes, with four convicted of murder. A Department of Justice lawyer, Hashim Mooppan, warned during Friday's hearing that halting such deportations could harm diplomatic relations and discourage other countries from accepting U.S. deportees in the future. This case marks another chapter in the broader legal battle surrounding the Trump administration's controversial immigration policies, particularly those targeting individuals for deportation to unstable or dangerous regions.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
These 26 Rich Private Colleges Just Got A Tax Cut From Republicans
S trange things happen when details of a massive tax and budget bill, like the one President Donald Trump signed yesterday, are tweaked behind closed doors. Among them: A couple dozen of the nation's wealthiest small private colleges will be getting a tax cut next year, even as bigger rich universities, including Princeton, MIT, Yale and Harvard, will be slammed with higher taxes. It all began as an effort by House Republicans to dramatically raise the excise tax imposed on the earnings of college endowments, and particularly the endowments of wealthy 'woke' schools like Harvard University that they (and President Donald Trump) have targeted. But as it turns out, while Harvard's tax bill will likely more than double, some smaller schools with famously left-leaning student bodies (e.g. Swarthmore College and Amherst College) are getting tax relief. That's because schools with fewer than 3,000 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students will be exempt from the revamped endowment tax beginning next year. It currently applies to private schools with more than 500 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students and endowments worth more than $500,000 per student. Using the latest available federal data from fiscal year 2023, Forbes identified at least 26 wealthy colleges that are likely subject to the endowment tax now, but will be exempt next year based on their size. Along with top liberal arts schools like Williams College, Wellesley College, Amherst and Swarthmore, the list includes the California Institute of Technology, a STEM powerhouse, and the Julliard School, the New York city institution known for its music, dance and drama training. Grinnell College in Iowa, which enrolled 1,790 students in 2023, will save around $2.4 million in tax each year as a result of the change, President Anne Harris said in an email to Forbes . Here's what happened. As passed by the House in late May, the One Big Beautiful Bill (its Trumpian name) increased the current 1.4% excise tax on college endowments' investment earnings to as high as 21% for the richest institutions—those with endowments worth more than $2 million a student. (While these schools are all non-profits and traditionally tax exempt, the 1.4% tax on investment earnings was introduced by Trump's big 2017 tax bill. According to Internal Revenue Service data, 56 schools paid a total of $381 million in endowment tax in calendar 2023.) Along with raising the rate, the House voted to exempt from the tax both religiously-affiliated schools (think the University of Notre Dame) and those that don't take federal student financial aid. (The religious exemption was structured in a way that Harvard, founded by the Puritans to train ministers, wouldn't qualify.) The House also sought to penalize schools like Columbia University, with heavy international student enrollments, by excluding students who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from the per capita calculations. Then the bill went to the Senate, where the Finance Committee settled on more modest–albeit still stiff–rate hikes. Schools with endowments of $500,000 to $750,000 per capita would still pay at a 1.4% rate, while those with endowments above $750,000 and up to $2 million would pay 4%. Those with endowments worth more than $2 million per student would pay an 8% tax on their earnings, not the 21% passed by the House. Enter Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who makes decisions on the Senate's Byrd rule, which requires parts of a budget reconciliation bill like this one to have a primary purpose related to the budget—not other types of policy. The Byrd rule was put in place because reconciliation isn't subject to filibuster. 'You can't get into a lot of prescriptive activity' in a budget reconciliation bill, explains Dean Zerbe, a national managing director for Alliantgroup, who worked on college endowment issues back when he was tax counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). 'Like, 'you've got to hop on one foot,' or 'you've got to make tuition affordable,' or 'you've got to do better in terms of admission.'' The Parliamentarian ruled that those three House provisions—exempting religious-affiliated schools, exempting schools that don't take federal aid, and excluding foreign students from the per capita calculation—didn't pass the Byrd test. At that point, Republican senators settled on the 3,000-student threshold in large part to specifically exempt one school from the tax: Hillsdale College, an ultra-conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan and a GOP darling. It enrolled 1,794 students in 2023, had an endowment worth $584,000 per-student, and notably accepts no federal money, including student aid. (So both the religious exemption and the one for schools taking no federal student aid would have presumably shielded Hillsdale from the endowment tax—before the Parliamentarian gave them the thumbs down.) There was also a broader group of small schools pushing for the exemption, notes Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. 'They made an argument that I think got some positive reception among Republican senators of saying that essentially, while their endowments may be big relative to the fact that they have small student bodies … their endowments weren't big.' A school like Amherst, he adds, 'might have a big endowment for a small school, but they don't have a big endowment relative to the Ivies and the more heavily resourced [universities].' House Republicans, under intense pressure to meet Trump's July 4th deadline, ended up accepting the final Senate product in full. That meant exempting the smaller schools, including the 'woke' ones, while levying a rate of up to 8% on the endowments of bigger schools. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates colleges will now pay an extra $761 million in tax over 10 years, compared to the extra $6.7 billion they would have paid under the House version with its higher 21% rate and broader reach. Based on data from 2023, Forbes estimates that at least 11 universities will have their endowment earnings taxed at an 8% or 4% rate in 2026, while five will continue to pay the 1.4% rate. Three schools—Princeton University, Yale University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will likely be required to pay an 8% excise tax on their endowment earnings. Another eight, including Harvard, Stanford University, Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, will likely pay a 4% tax. The remaining five schools—Emory University, Duke University, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown University—would pay the same 1.4% endowment tax rate they're paying now, based on fiscal 2023 numbers. One school that will likely pay 4% is the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic-affiliated school which would have been exempt from the tax were it not for the Byrd rule. 'We are deeply disappointed by the removal of language protecting religious institutions of higher education from the endowment tax before passage of the final bill,' Notre Dame wrote in a statement to Forbes . 'Any expansion of the endowment tax threatens to undermine the ability of a broad range of faith-based institutions to serve their religious purpose. We are proud to have stood with a coalition of these institutions against that threat, and we are encouraged by the strong support for a religious exemption received from both chambers.' Fansmith, for his part, won't call the exemption of the small schools a win. 'We think the tax is a bad idea and it's bad policy, and no schools should be paying it. But, by the standard that fewer schools are paying, it's better, but it's still not good,' he says. 'It's not really about revenue,' adds Fansmith. 'It's really about punishing these schools that right now a segment of the Republican party doesn't like.' The schools make the argument that it's students who are being punished, since around half of endowment spending pays for student scholarships. Meanwhile, Zerbe warns the now exempt schools shouldn't take that status for granted. 'Once revenue raisers are in play and out there, they come back again and again,' he says. 'It would be a disaster for [colleges] to think somehow this was a win for them. This was a billion dollar hit on them and there's more to come later.' More from Forbes Forbes Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Foreign Student Crackdown Puts These 16 Struggling Colleges At Risk By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Visa Ban Is Barring New Foreign Doctors From Entering U.S. By Emma Whitford Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
House passes Trump's 'big, beautiful bill' as opponents flip
The House of Representatives sent Donald Trump's "Big, Beautiful Bill" to the president for his signature Thursday after a record-setting and emotional debate over a piece of legislation that will be felt across the economy for years to come. The final vote was 218-214, with just two Republicans voting no in the end. House Speaker Mike Johnson whittled down a list of over two dozen GOP holdouts who were objecting to the bill as recently as Wednesday to just Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt quickly announced after the vote ended that Trump would sign the bill on Friday at 5 p.m. ET at a White House ceremony, adding "this bill is going to create an economic boom for the United States of America." The approval came after a pressure campaign from the White House and yet another all-night session on Capitol Hill that satisfied Republican holdouts concerned about the multitrillion-dollar price tag and healthcare cuts. The vote also came after Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries held the floor — for what C-SPAN confirmed was a new length record — to lambast the bill for more than eight hours. He said that he spoke so that the final vote would happen 'in the light of day' and at another point calling the legislation a "crime scene." But Johnson and his colleagues celebrated final passage soon after Jeffries yielded, with the House speaker saying just before the vote commenced that "this day is a hugely important one" and describing it as part of a long list of recent Trump wins. He and his colleagues soaked in a victory many were skeptical could ever happen — the weaving together of a wide array of Republican priorities into a single bill and sending it to Trump before his self-imposed July 4 deadline. What in the end appears to have allowed Johnson to move many of these recalcitrant lawmakers into the yes column were not any changes to the bill itself — today's vote approved the 870-page bill that passed the Senate earlier this week with zero changes — but with promises from Trump of things like executive actions to address their concerns. Read more: Taxes, energy, and healthcare: 3 ways Senate's Trump megabill impacts the business world The back-and-forth Thursday was just the latest twist in days of negotiations over a reconciliation package that is set to reshape large swathes of the US economy, especially in areas of taxes, energy, and healthcare. The package also includes a $5 trillion debt ceiling increase and is projected to unleash new borrowing that will lead the US national debt to surpass $40 trillion in the coming years. Economists have likewise noted the final price tag, which could lead to $4 trillion in new debt over the coming decade, and critiqued an accounting gimmick Republicans employed to hide much of that red ink. It's a bill also set to be felt in American pocketbooks with provisions like no taxes on some tips, cuts to student loans and the Pell Grant program, an increase in state tax deductions, and a range of other provisions, even so-called MAGA accounts for young children. The process proved exceptionally contentious in recent days, largely over the healthcare portion of the bill, which appears set to extract hundreds of billions in government savings but cause millions to lose their coverage. Clean energy was another key last-minute flash point, with Tesla (TSLA) CEO Elon Musk perhaps the loudest voice in opposition. That portion of the bill saw provisions added and subtracted in rapid succession during the Senate debate, sending solar stocks gyrating. It ended with a final product that didn't include at least one of the harshest ideas, but is nevertheless set to have the US government move away from any significant role in renewable energy in the years ahead. A first step will be felt quickly with a plan to eliminate electric vehicle credits on Sept. 30 of this year. Democrats, for their part, promised to make the bill a political albatross for Republicans and have signaled plans to talk nonstop about the package between now and next year's midterm election. "Don't ever lecture us about fiscal responsibility: Not now, not ever," Jeffries said at one point in his Thursday morning speech. Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said in her own reaction after the vote: "We will never let the Republican Party forget." A particular political focus is expected to be on the healthcare provisions that, according to an accounting from the Congressional Budget Office that came in over the weekend, could cause 11.8 million additional Americans to become uninsured by 2034. A series of polls has also shown declines in the overall public support for the bill as the focus on healthcare has intensified. Even a recent Fox News national poll found a 21-point gap between those who say they are opposed (59%) and those who say they are in favor (38%). Read more: What is a healthcare FSA? The Democratic opposition also comes as Republicans clearly have mixed feelings about the bill with some of the healthcare cuts. Some Republicans continue to slam that portion of the bill as too politically painful. Meanwhile, some of their colleagues look at the exact same provisions and say the cuts are not deep enough to improve the fiscal situation. In just one example of Republican tensions, GOP Rep. Keith Self of Texas posted Wednesday just hours before voting began that the bill was "morally and fiscally bankrupt," before then voting yes on Thursday and saying "issues have now been addressed" even as he acknowledged "the bill is not perfect." This story has been updated with additional developments. Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices
