Key Takeaways
• On May 27, 2025, Trump administration petitioned Supreme Court to deport migrants without due process.
• At least eight men with criminal records await deportation decision at U.S. military base in Djibouti.
• Court requires 10 days notice, written warnings, legal counsel access before deporting to countries like South Sudan.
On May 27, 2025, the Trump administration took a major step in its immigration policy by asking the Supreme Court to allow the government to deport migrants—including those with criminal convictions—to countries like South Sudan 🇸🇸 and other third countries, without the due process protections that federal courts currently require. This emergency petition follows a series of court rulings that found the government violated migrants’ rights by trying to deport them with little or no notice and without giving them a real chance to explain why they might face torture or persecution if sent to these countries.
This legal battle is unfolding as at least eight men, all with past criminal convictions, remain held at a U.S. military facility in Djibouti, waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision. The outcome will affect not only these men but also many others who might face deportation to third countries in the future. The case raises big questions about how far the government can go in removing people from the United States 🇺🇸, what rights migrants have, and how the U.S. meets its international obligations.
What’s Happening: The Trump Administration’s Emergency Petition
The Trump administration’s emergency petition to the Supreme Court is a direct response to a federal judge’s order that blocks the government from deporting migrants to third countries—especially unstable places like South Sudan 🇸🇸—without giving them basic legal protections. These protections, known as “due process,” include:
- Written notice of the country where the migrant will be sent
- At least 10 days to raise concerns about safety or fear of torture/persecution
- 15 days to contest any negative decision by an immigration officer
- Access to legal counsel
- No removal until all these steps are completed
The Trump administration argues that these rules make it much harder to remove people who cannot be sent back to their home countries, especially those with criminal records. According to Solicitor General D. John Sauer, these court-imposed procedures are causing “significant and irreparable harm” to the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and are creating a “diplomatic and logistical morass.”
How Did We Get Here? The Legal and Policy Background
The Court’s Orders and the Administration’s Response
In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction—an order that temporarily blocks the government from carrying out certain actions. Judge Murphy’s order requires the government to:
- Give migrants written notice of their intended deportation destination
- Allow at least 10 days for migrants to raise concerns about their safety
- Give 15 days to contest any negative finding by an immigration officer before removal to a third country
This order came after migrants and their advocates sued the government, arguing that the administration’s policy of deporting people to third countries without notice or a chance to object violated both U.S. law and international agreements. The Trump administration, however, continued to try to deport several men to South Sudan 🇸🇸, even after the court’s order, which led to further criticism from Judge Murphy. He accused the administration of “manufacturing chaos” and not following the court’s instructions.
The Policy Shift Under Trump
Since returning to office, President Trump has pushed for a policy that allows the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to deport migrants to third countries—not just their home countries or places where they have legal status—without giving them advance notice or a chance to claim fear of persecution or torture. This is a big change from past practice, where the U.S. often released people into the country if no safe third country could be found.
The administration says this new approach is needed to remove people who are considered dangerous or who have no legal right to stay in the United States 🇺🇸. But critics say it puts people at risk of serious harm, especially when they are sent to unstable countries like South Sudan 🇸🇸, where the U.S. government itself warns against travel due to crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.
The Supreme Court’s Role and What’s at Stake
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the Trump administration’s emergency petition. The decision will have a big impact on how the U.S. handles deportations to third countries, especially for people who cannot be sent back to their home countries.
If the Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, the government could quickly deport migrants to countries like South Sudan 🇸🇸 without giving them a real chance to explain why they might be in danger. If the Court upholds the lower court’s order, migrants will continue to have the right to notice, time to object, and access to legal help before being sent to a third country.
Why South Sudan 🇸🇸 Matters
South Sudan 🇸🇸 is one of the main countries at the center of this legal fight. The U.S. government has tried to send migrants there, even though it is considered highly unstable. The State Department warns Americans not to travel to South Sudan 🇸🇸 because of the risk of crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict. Sending people there without giving them a chance to explain their fears could put them in serious danger.
Other countries, like El Salvador 🇸🇻, Costa Rica 🇨🇷, and Panama 🇵🇦, have also been approached to accept deportees, but South Sudan 🇸🇸 stands out because of its security problems.
What Are the Rules Now? Step-by-Step Process Under Court Orders
Right now, because of Judge Murphy’s order, the government must follow these steps before deporting someone to a third country:
- Notification: The migrant must get written notice of where the government plans to send them.
- Opportunity to Object: The migrant has at least 10 days to raise concerns about safety or fear of torture/persecution in the destination country.
- Adjudication: If the migrant raises concerns, they have 15 days to contest any negative decision by an immigration officer.
- Access to Counsel: The migrant must be allowed to talk to a lawyer.
- No Removal Until Process Complete: The government cannot deport the person until all these steps are finished.
These rules are meant to make sure that people are not sent to places where they could face serious harm, in line with the United States’ 🇺🇸 obligations under the Convention Against Torture. This international treaty says that no one should be sent to a country where they are likely to be tortured.
Who Is Affected? Stakeholders and Their Concerns
Migrants and Their Advocates
Migrants facing deportation to third countries are the most directly affected. Many have criminal convictions, but advocates say that does not mean they should be sent to dangerous places without a fair process. They argue that everyone deserves notice, a chance to object, and legal help—especially when their lives may be at risk.
The Trump Administration
President Trump and his officials argue that the court’s rules make it too hard to remove people who have no legal right to stay in the United States 🇺🇸. They say the process is too slow and complicated, and that it interferes with the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws and manage diplomatic relations with other countries.
President Trump has also criticized federal judges, including Judge Murphy, for blocking his immigration policies. He says the courts are stopping the government from removing dangerous individuals and keeping the country safe.
The Federal Judiciary
Judges like Brian Murphy insist that due process is a basic right, even for people with criminal records. They say the government must follow the law and international agreements, and that sending people to dangerous countries without a fair process is not acceptable.
Third Countries
Countries like South Sudan 🇸🇸 are sometimes willing to accept deportees, but doing so can create problems. South Sudan 🇸🇸 is unstable, and taking in people who have no ties to the country can add to its challenges. Other countries may refuse to accept deportees or set strict conditions.
Legal Experts
Legal scholars point out that the U.S. Constitution and international treaties require the government to give people a real chance to contest removal to dangerous places. They warn that ignoring these rules could lead to violations of both U.S. and international law.
Real-Life Example: The May 19, 2025 Incident
On May 19, 2025, eight men were told they would be deported, first to South Africa 🇿🇦, then later that day to South Sudan 🇸🇸. They had less than 16 hours’ notice, most of which was overnight. This short notice made it almost impossible for them to contact lawyers or gather evidence about the risks they faced. The administration’s actions led to more criticism from the courts and advocates, who said the government was not following the rules.
Broader Implications: What Could Happen Next?
For Migrants
If the Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to move forward, many more migrants could be sent to third countries quickly, with little chance to object. This could put people at risk, especially if they are sent to unstable places like South Sudan 🇸🇸.
For U.S. Policy
The case could set a major precedent for how much process the government must give to people facing deportation. It could also affect how the U.S. meets its obligations under international law, especially the Convention Against Torture.
For Diplomatic Relations
The outcome may affect how other countries view the United States 🇺🇸 and its willingness to respect international agreements. It could also impact U.S. relations with countries asked to accept deportees, especially if those countries are unstable or unwilling.
For the Legal System
The Supreme Court’s decision will shape the balance between the government’s power to enforce immigration laws and the rights of individuals facing removal. It will also show how much protection the courts are willing to give to non-citizens, especially those with criminal records.
Multiple Perspectives: A Quick Comparison
| Stakeholder | Position/Concern |
|---|---|
| Trump Administration | Wants to speed up removals, says court orders slow enforcement and hurt diplomacy |
| Federal Judiciary | Insists on due process and following international law |
| Migrants/Advocates | Demand notice, legal help, and a chance to contest dangerous removals |
| Third Countries | Some accept deportees; others, like South Sudan 🇸🇸, are risky destinations |
| Legal Scholars | Stress constitutional and treaty obligations for fair process |
Official Resources for More Information
For those seeking more details or legal help, the following official resources are available:
- U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- U.S. Department of Justice
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
- American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA)
- National Immigrant Justice Center
What Should Migrants and Advocates Do Now?
Migrants facing possible deportation to a third country should:
- Seek legal help immediately. Contact organizations like AILA or the National Immigrant Justice Center.
- Ask for written notice of any planned deportation and keep all documents.
- Raise any fears of torture or persecution as soon as possible, in writing if possible.
- Request access to legal counsel and insist on the right to contest removal if facing deportation to a third country.
Looking Ahead: The Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court’s decision on the Trump administration’s emergency petition will be critical. It will decide whether the government can deport people to third countries like South Sudan 🇸🇸 without giving them a real chance to object. The ruling will shape U.S. immigration policy, the rights of migrants, and the country’s reputation for following the rule of law.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, this case is being closely watched by legal experts, advocates, and government officials. The outcome could change how the United States 🇺🇸 handles some of the most difficult immigration cases for years to come.
For the latest updates and official guidance, visit the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Takeaway: The Trump administration’s push to speed up third-country deportations—especially to unstable places like South Sudan 🇸🇸—is now in the hands of the Supreme Court. The decision will affect not only the migrants currently held in Djibouti but also the future of U.S. immigration enforcement, due process rights, and America’s standing in the world. Everyone involved—migrants, advocates, government officials, and legal experts—will be watching closely for the Court’s ruling in the coming weeks.
Learn Today
Due Process → Legal protections ensuring migrants are notified and can contest deportation before removal.
Third Country → A nation that is neither the migrant’s home nor legal residence country for deportation.
Preliminary Injunction → A temporary court order blocking deportations until legal issues are resolved.
Convention Against Torture → An international treaty preventing deportation to countries where torture is likely.
Emergency Petition → A rapid legal request to Supreme Court to override lower court orders.
This Article in a Nutshell
The Trump administration seeks Supreme Court approval to deport migrants to third countries without due process. This legal battle highlights tensions over migrants’ rights, especially regarding deportations to unstable countries like South Sudan, while courts insist on protections to prevent harm and uphold international law obligations.
— By VisaVerge.com
