The federal judge ordered American officials to appear on Wednesday on Wednesday to identify migrants affected by the decision to remove to South Sudan, because they believe that their deportations were unlawful.
US District Judge Brian E. Murphy in Massachusetts issued a ruling after an emergency trial, after immigrants' lawyers said that Trump's administration began to deport people from Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan – despite the court order limiting moving to other countries.
Murphy wants to hear from officials when and how the deportatts learned that they would be removed to the country, he also ruled that the government must provide information about the place of migrants' stay apparently removed.
Murphy said that the government must “maintain care and control over class members who are now removed to South Sudan or to any other third country to ensure practical enforceability of the return if the court found that such removal was unlawful.”
While Murphy left details to recognize the government, he said that he expected migrants “treated in humanitarianism.”
Migrants' lawyers told the judge that the immigration authorities could send to a dozen or so people from several countries to Africa, which, he claims, violates the court order in which it was found that people must obtain a “significant opportunity” to argue that sending them to the country outside their homeland threatens their safety.
According to court documents, the apparent removal of one man from Myanmar was confirmed by a mail from an immigration clerk in Texas. They said that he was informed only in English, a language that he did not speak well, and his lawyers learned about the plan a few hours before the deportation flight, they said.
The woman also informed that her husband from Vietnam and a maximum of 10 other people were flying to Africa on Tuesday morning, wrote lawyers from the National Immigration of the Alliance.
Lawyers asked Murphy for a court order to prevent deportations. Murphy, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, previously stated that all plans to deport people to Libya in North Africa without notification “clearly” violated his ruling, which also applies to people who otherwise exhausted their legal appeals.
The Internal Security Department and the White House did not immediately return the news looking for a comment.
South Sudan on the edge of the civil war
Some countries do not accept the deportation of the United States, which led Trump's administration to be stratified with other countries, including Costa Rica and Panama, for their room. The Trump administration deported several Venezuelans who did not face a notorious prison in El Salvador under the 18th century martial law charged in courts.
South Sudan suffered repeated waves of violence since independence from Sudan in 2011. Just a few weeks ago, an UN official warned that the fight between loyal forces towards the president and the vice -chairman threatened to spiral in the civil war again.
The Trump administration deported over 200 immigrants, citing the Act on aliens – war – claiming that they were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang. Andrew Chang explains how Trump interprets the language of law from 1798 to avoid a standard system of immigration courts and why experts say this slippery slope.
The situation “dark resembles conflicts in 2013 and 2016, which took over 400,000 people”, Nicholas Haysom, the head of the UN peace mission of almost 20,000.
The annual report of the US Department of State on the subject of South Sudan, published in April 2024, says that “significant problems with human rights” include arbitrary murders, disappearances, torture or inhuman treatment by security forces and extensive violence based on gender and sexual identity.
Médecins without Frontières, also known as doctors without borders, reported two fatal attacks on his facilities in April and May, and said that the healthcare system in the country is on the verge of fall.
The United States Internal Security Department has given a temporary protected status to a small number of South Sudan already living in the United States since the establishment of the country in 2011, general before deportation, because the conditions were considered dangerous for the return. This status is ready to renew in November.
The judge should consider determining the contempt: Democrat
Democratic Senator Richard Blimenthal of Connecticut said CNN in an interview at the end of Tuesday that he was inexplicable “and” cruel “that the administration even considered South Sudan for the place of the third country.
He said Murphy should consider keeping the administration in contempt in court.
“Violations of court orders should be treated with the highest sanctions, because otherwise the law is a dead letter,” said Blimenthal.
Murphy's request appears when the secretary of internal security Kristi Noem testified in Congress that the constitutional provision, which allows people to legalize their detention by the government, is actually a tool of Donald Trump's administration.
Noem in the Congress Committee on Tuesday called Habeas Corpus “by the constitutional law, which the president must be able to remove people from this country and suspend their rights.”
“It's incorrect,” said New Hampshire Democrat Maggie Hassan, defining “a legal principle requiring a public reason to be a public reason to stop and imprison people.” Hassan, a former lawyer he practiced in Boston, called Habeas Corpus “a fundamental law that separates free societies, such as America from police countries such as North Korea.”
In this way, the deputy chief of the White Staff of the House of Stephen Miller, who said at the beginning of this month that President Donald Trump is looking for ways to extend the legal power of the administration to illegal deporting of migrants who are in the United States. To achieve this, Miller said that the administration “actively looks at” Habeas Corpus suspension.
The United States suspended Habeas Corpus in four separate circumstances in its history, but not from years after the Second World War, and these opportunities usually required a congress permission.
John Blume, a professor at Cornell Law School, said that Noem's answer to Hassan was either proof that “Basically a misunderstanding of Habeas Corpus” or “gave an answer that she knew she was wrong to calm the president.”