In a high-stakes clash between executive immigration authority and judicial oversight, the Trump administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a Massachusetts court ruling that currently prevents the deportation of immigrants to countries not explicitly named in their removal orders—unless specific anti-torture safeguards are satisfied. The case, with sweeping implications for immigration enforcement, executive power, and international human rights obligations, places a sharp spotlight on the procedural rights of immigrants facing removal and the role of courts in safeguarding those rights.
At the heart of this legal controversy is a recent order by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, who prohibited the federal government from deporting noncitizens to third-party countries unless they are given meaningful due process to contest such transfers. Specifically, Judge Murphy ruled that before an immigrant can be removed to a country not listed in their original deportation order, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) must:
- Provide written notice of the proposed third-country removal,
- Offer a chance for the individual to express fear of torture,
- Conduct a screening (if necessary) to assess the legitimacy of such fears, and
- Allow at least 15 days to pursue motions to reopen their immigration cases.
Judge Murphy’s order stems from a lawsuit filed by four immigrants in Massachusetts, each with existing removal orders and a documented fear of being deported to countries where they might face torture—namely, South Sudan, a nation presently on the brink of renewed civil war.
Despite this judicial directive, the Trump administration moved forward with plans in late May to deport several individuals—including immigrants with prior convictions for violent crimes—to South Sudan. Judge Murphy quickly intervened, ruling that DHS’s actions violated his order and emphasizing that “meaningful opportunity” to raise torture concerns means a minimum of ten days’ notice.
Further complicating matters, several of the immigrants had already been flown to a U.S. military base in Djibouti, awaiting transfer to South Sudan. In response, Murphy issued another order requiring the federal government to maintain custody and control over those individuals. He also mandated that the immigrants be given private interviews, held in conditions equivalent to U.S. detention facilities, and afforded 72 hours’ notice before any further removal steps are taken.
The Trump administration, represented by U.S. Solicitor D. John Sauer, immediately appealed to the Supreme Court. The petition seeks an emergency stay of Judge Murphy’s order and broader clarification of the federal government’s deportation authority. Sauer argues that the district court has overstepped its jurisdiction, infringing on the executive branch’s constitutionally granted power to execute removal orders and manage foreign policy.
Sauer contends that third-country removals are often the only viable path to deportation, especially when individuals cannot safely return to their home countries due to torture risks or unstable regimes. In his emergency filing, Sauer emphasized the sensitive diplomacy required to convince other countries to accept high-risk individuals and warned that Murphy’s ruling has “stalled these efforts nationwide.”
Beyond the practical concerns, the Trump administration frames the case as a constitutional showdown. Citing statutory authority under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), Sauer argues that courts cannot impose sweeping injunctions or procedural requirements that bind the executive’s ability to carry out removals—particularly when national security, diplomatic relationships, and foreign policy are implicated.
The case has now landed before the Supreme Court’s emergency docket, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson assigned to review requests from the First Circuit, which includes Massachusetts. The Court has asked the plaintiffs to respond by June 4, potentially setting the stage for swift action. At stake is not just the fate of a few immigrants held overseas, but the broader precedent regarding judicial intervention in deportation procedures and the executive branch’s flexibility in immigration matters.
This case mirrors the growing number of high-profile immigration disputes the Supreme Court has been asked to resolve in recent years. Much like the controversial “Remain in Mexico” policy or litigation over DACA and Title 42, Fernandez v. United States (which the Court recently agreed to hear) and now this third-party removal case may reshape the legal landscape for noncitizens, particularly those facing deportation after serving time for serious crimes.
Legal scholars are watching closely. The key question is whether fear of torture in a non-designated removal country—one that was not originally part of the individual’s removal order—can justify procedural protections typically reserved for direct deportations. Also at issue is whether courts can craft such procedures without intruding on executive prerogatives.
For now, the fate of Judge Murphy’s procedural safeguards—and the immigrants stuck in legal limbo—hangs in the balance as the justices deliberate on whether to intervene.
#ImmigrationLaw
#SCOTUS #DeportationDebate #DueProcessRights #ImmigrationJustice #ThirdCountryRemoval #LegalNews #ExecutivePower #HumanRightsLaw #TortureConvention
lawrota.com 
Leave a comment