Woodside Energy seeks arbitration in dispute with Senegal
"Woodside strongly believes we have acted in accordance with applicable regulations, the Sangomar Production Sharing Contract and the Host Government Agreement, and there are no outstanding taxes payable," the company told Reuters via email.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Supreme Court clears way for deportation to South Sudan of several immigrants with no ties there
The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. 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 decision makes clear that the South Sudan flight can complete the trip, weeks after it was detoured to a naval base in Djibouti. There, the migrants who had previously been convicted of serious crimes were held in a converted shipping container. 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. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said federal authorities would complete the trip to South Sudan by the next day. The Supreme Court majority wrote that their decision on June 23 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. Justice Elena Kagan wrote that while she disagreed with the original order, it does countermand Murphy's findings on the South Sudan flight. The eight migrants could face 'imprisonment, torture and even death' in 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.' McLaughlin said the Supreme Court's intervention is 'a win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Attorney General Pam Bondi called Murphy a 'rogue district court judge' and said the justices had rebuked him. Authorities have reached agreements with other countries to house immigrants if authorities can't quickly send them back to their homelands. The eight men sent to South Sudan in May had been convicted of crimes in the U.S. and had final orders of removal, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials have said. Murphy, who was nominated by Democratic President Joe Biden, didn't 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, even if they've already exhausted their legal appeals. The men and their guards have faced rough conditions on the naval base in Djibouti, where authorities detoured the flight after Murphy found the administration had violated his order by failing to allow them a chance to challenge the removal. They have since said they're afraid of being sent to South Sudan, Realmuto said.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court clears way for deportation of migrants to South Sudan
The supreme court on Thursday cleared the way for the deportation of several immigrants who were put on a flight in May bound for South Sudan, a war-ravaged country where they have no ties. 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.
Reuters
3 hours ago
- Reuters
US Supreme Court sides with Trump in South Sudan deportation fight
July 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court again sided with President Donald Trump's administration in a legal fight over deporting migrants to countries other than their own, lifting on Thursday limits a judge had imposed to protect eight men who the government sought to send to politically unstable South Sudan. 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.
