The Trump administration has filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the justices to overturn a federal judge’s order that halted the government’s plan to deport migrants to countries with which they have no connection. The administration argues that the injunction is significantly impeding the president’s deportation efforts.
In a 43-page emergency application submitted to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserted that the lower court’s order “usurps the Executive’s authority over immigration policy” and “disrupts sensitive diplomatic, foreign-policy, and national-security efforts.” He further contended that “Recent events vividly illustrate the injunction’s pathologies.”
The legal challenge originates from a class-action lawsuit filed by immigration advocacy groups, including the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, contesting the legality of third-country removals.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee based in Boston, issued a sharply worded 48-page memorandum and order on April 18, preventing the government from proceeding with these deportations. Judge Murphy stated that the case presented a fundamental question regarding due process: “before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?”
Previously, Judge Murphy issued a temporary restraining order on March 28, which suspended deportations to “third countries” pending judicial review. This order followed a motion hearing where Judge Murphy criticized Department of Justice (DOJ) attorneys for arguing that the deportations would not violate any existing US law or treaty obligations. The First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the temporary restraining order on May 15, declining to lift it.
Judge Murphy further accused the government last week of violating his April 18 injunction by allegedly deporting several migrants to South Sudan, a country none of them originated from, without proper due process. He reiterated his criticism of the Trump administration for disregarding the “long history” of legal precedent concerning due process rights by deporting at least seven individuals to South Sudan with less than 24 hours’ notice.
Attorneys for the DOJ, which has brought multiple cases before the Supreme Court since President Trump assumed office in January, countered Judge Murphy’s reasoning, arguing that his order has caused more detriment than benefit.
Solicitor General Sauer stated that by “slamming on the brakes while these aliens were literally mid-flight — thus forcing the government to detain them at a military base in Djibouti not designed or equipped to hold such criminals — the court then retroactively ‘clarified’ its injunction to impose an additional set of intrusive and onerous procedures on DHS.” He further charged that these court-ordered procedures were “misguided” and “unlawful.”
Sauer argued that the US is facing a “crisis of illegal immigration, in no small part” because many individuals “most deserving of removal” are often the “hardest to remove.” He asserted that while individuals who commit crimes in the US are typically ordered removed, their countries of origin are often unwilling to accept them back, leading to “criminal aliens” remaining in the US for extended periods.
The Trump administration, according to Sauer, has been “taken steps” to address this issue by deporting immigrants to “third countries that have agreed to accept them.” He claimed that these efforts were successful “until recently,” when Judge Murphy’s order allegedly disrupted them. Sauer concluded that “A single federal district court … has stalled these efforts nationwide” by issuing “an extraordinary preliminary injunction that restrains DHS from exercising its undisputed statutory authority” on behalf of a nationwide class of aliens with final orders of removal.
Under Judge Murphy’s injunction, the government is required to “provide written notice” to all affected immigrants and their attorneys about their proposed deportation destination. Additionally, the order mandates a “meaningful opportunity” for immigrants to express fears of persecution or torture in those countries, consistent with the torture convention, along with an additional chance to seek to reopen their immigration proceedings to challenge the potential third-country removal. The injunction also grants immigrants a minimum 15-day period to challenge their third-country removal.
Sauer concluded by stating that “The district court’s invented process offers little but delay” and that while some aliens may benefit from stalling their removal, “the Nation does not.”
Be First to Comment