On Friday night, the Trump administration deported eight immigrants to South Sudan after the Supreme Court authorized the move for the second time. This decision was made despite considerable concerns regarding constitutional, federal, and international laws. Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted the gravity of the situation, stating, “As a result, thousands of people will suffer from violence in faraway places.”
And now, that moment has arrived. The ruling majority bears responsibility for this outcome.
As per Federal Law from 1952, the government is supposed to enforce deportations of non-citizens only to their countries of eligibility. If those options don’t work, Congress suggests considering countries where the individuals are citizens or have residency.
If those options also fail, the government can contemplate deporting to “third countries”—essentially nations that will accept them. This method has led to many migrants ending up in the notorious Cecot prison in El Salvador, and now, eight individuals have found themselves back in South Sudan. Their attorneys noted that among them are people from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, Vietnam, and Sudan.
However, the law dictates that before resorting to third-country deportations, all other avenues should be attempted, and a judgment must be made that they are “impossible.”
The U.S. also became a signatory to the 1984 Convention Against Torture, which explicitly prohibits deportation under certain conditions. In 1988, Congress reinforced this by stipulating that individuals cannot be sent back to a place where they risk torture, whether they are currently in the U.S. or not.
This presents a legal hurdle that the government must clear before proceeding with third-country deportations. Typically, courts assess whether the government has met this requirement, which is rooted in due process.
The Trump administration has managed to skirt these legalities. For instance, after a judge ruled that it was inappropriate to send a Guatemalan man back to his home country, the administration instead deported him to Mexico, which then sent him back. It’s odd, yet the government was upfront about its plans to use Mexico as a route for deportation.
In light of that situation, several non-citizens initiated a class-action lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, amongst others, seeking to halt third-country removals without due notice. A lower court granted a temporary injunction on March 28, prohibiting such removals unless proper procedures were followed. Yet, the government proceeded with flights to El Salvador only days later, disregarding this ruling.
Another injunction on April 18 mandated that immigrants must be notified before any third-country deportation takes place. However, on May 7, it was reported that plans were underway to deport 13 migrants from Laos, Vietnam, and the Philippines to Libya, which went against the court’s directives. Yet another injunction was issued in response.
Amid these violations, the bipartisan majority in the Supreme Court chose to pause the appeal and lift the injunction, permitting removals without due process hearings, even in Djibouti.
The lower court then reiterated that the government must adhere to federal judicial orders, irrespective of ongoing appeals. The Supreme Court majority claimed that not doing so would hinder the government’s compliance.
On Monday, the El Salvador government reported that despite an ongoing $6 million agreement with the Trump administration, the competency and legal responsibility for these individuals lie with the relevant authorities in the U.S.
Kilmer Abrego Garcia, who escaped from Cecot, faces criminal charges in the U.S. He described horrific treatment during his time there, including forced kneeling and severe beatings, leading to significant weight loss.
At the same time, South Sudan is grappling with an alarming humanitarian crisis affecting millions. Years of conflict have decimated health facilities and escalated inflation, while the country suffers from a cholera outbreak and devastating floods.
These are crucial factors that federal and international laws require the Trump administration to consider before sending individuals into danger. The administration’s blatant disregard for these issues was evident as voters prepared to head to the polls on November 5, 2024.
