Key Takeaways
• On May 27, 2025, DOJ asked the Supreme Court to lift an injunction blocking rapid deportations to third countries.
• Judge Murphy’s injunction requires notice and risk assessment before deporting immigrants to third countries without ties.
• The Trump administration aims to speed deportations to reduce a backlog of over 3.5 million immigration cases.
On May 27, 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) made a high-profile request to the Supreme Court, asking for emergency relief to lift a nationwide injunction that currently blocks the federal government from quickly deporting certain immigrants to countries where they have no personal or family ties. This legal move, coming from the Trump administration, marks a critical moment in the ongoing debate over how the United States 🇺🇸 handles deportations, especially for noncitizens with criminal convictions.
This article breaks down the latest developments, explains the legal and policy background, and explores what this could mean for immigrants, their families, and the broader U.S. immigration system.
What Happened: DOJ’s Emergency Appeal to the Supreme Court
The DOJ’s emergency appeal centers on a preliminary injunction issued by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts. Judge Murphy’s order stops the government from deporting immigrants to third countries—countries not listed in their original deportation orders—unless the government first proves that these individuals will not face torture in those countries.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued that Judge Murphy’s requirements are causing major problems for the government’s ability to remove noncitizens. Sauer said these court-ordered procedures are interfering with the executive branch’s authority over immigration, and are also disrupting sensitive diplomatic and national security efforts.
The DOJ’s request to the Supreme Court came after Judge Murphy refused to delay his injunction, even temporarily. As a result, the administration is now asking the nation’s highest court to step in while the legal battle continues in lower courts.
The South Sudan Deportation Incident: A Flashpoint
The immediate spark for this legal fight was the government’s attempt on May 20, 2025, to deport several immigrants to South Sudan—a country where none of them had citizenship or family connections. These individuals originally came from countries like Vietnam, Myanmar, Cuba, Laos, and Mexico.
According to the Department of Homeland Security, these people had been convicted of serious crimes in the United States 🇺🇸, including murder, arson, kidnapping, and armed robbery. The administration argued that removing them was necessary for public safety.
However, Judge Murphy ruled that this deportation violated his earlier order because the government did not give the immigrants enough time to raise concerns about possible torture or harm in South Sudan. He said that a “meaningful opportunity” to contest such deportations means giving at least ten days’ notice.
After the attempted deportation, the migrants were held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti. Judge Murphy ordered the government to keep custody of these individuals and to give them a private interview, with at least 72 hours’ notice, so they could explain any fears about torture or danger if sent to South Sudan.
The Trump Administration’s Policy: Expanding Rapid Deportations
This legal dispute is part of a larger effort by the Trump administration to speed up deportations. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Homeland Security to take “all appropriate actions” to remove noncitizens with deportation orders.
By February, the administration began looking at whether people who had been protected from removal to their home countries could instead be sent to third countries. In March, new guidance stated that if a third country gives “credible diplomatic assurance” that it will not persecute or torture a migrant, the U.S. could deport that person there without further legal steps.
The administration has approached countries such as Libya, Rwanda, and Costa Rica to accept migrants who are not their citizens. According to documents obtained by CBS News, more than 200 Venezuelans have already been sent to El Salvador, where they are being held at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).
Legal Arguments: DOJ vs. Immigrant Rights Groups
DOJ’s Position
The DOJ argues that Judge Murphy’s injunction is blocking thousands of pending deportations. The government says its policy meets legal requirements and that the judge’s order wrongly limits the executive branch’s power to enforce immigration laws.
Solicitor General Sauer described the case as involving “the government’s ability to remove some of the worst of the worst illegal aliens.” The administration believes that speeding up deportations will help reduce the huge backlog in immigration courts, which now have more than 3.5 million pending cases—a number that has tripled since 2020.
President Trump has publicly supported this approach. He recently said from the Oval Office, “We have thousands of people that are ready to go out, and you can’t have a trial for all of these people.” After Judge Murphy’s ruling, President Trump called on the Supreme Court to “put an END” to what he described as judges interfering with his immigration enforcement efforts.
Immigrant Rights Groups’ Position
On the other side, immigrant rights groups have filed a class action lawsuit to stop rapid deportations to third countries without proper notice or a chance to raise safety concerns. Their main argument is that the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires the government to give notice and a chance for a hearing before taking actions that could harm someone.
Judge Murphy agreed with these arguments in his April injunction. He wrote that the government cannot send a deportable person to a country where they could face torture or death without giving them a real chance to explain their fears. He stated, “The United States may [not] send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin, not where an immigration judge has ordered, where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity to tell the deporting authorities that they face grave danger or death.”
Judge Murphy also pointed out that “All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the assistant solicitor general of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this court all disagree” with the government’s position. The 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston refused to pause Murphy’s decision on May 16, 2025.
Other Recent Legal Challenges to Rapid Deportations
The South Sudan case is not the only legal challenge facing the administration’s deportation policies. Two other cases highlight the ongoing legal battles:
The El Salvador Case
On May 19, 2025, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the government to help return Daniel Lozano-Camargo, a 20-year-old Venezuelan man who was deported to El Salvador. His removal violated a 2024 settlement agreement that protected asylum seekers who arrived as unaccompanied minors. The court rejected the government’s claim that returning him would cause “serious foreign-policy harms,” saying this argument “rings hollow” since his deportation broke the settlement.
The Pomona Case
In California, the Trump administration tried to quickly deport three Guatemalan day laborers who were detained far from the border. Judge Dana Sabraw issued a temporary restraining order, blocking their removal after their lawyers argued that Border Patrol agents stopped them without reasonable suspicion, violating their Fourth Amendment rights. On May 26, 2025, the administration backed down, with a government lawyer saying the men were no longer being processed for rapid removal without a hearing before an immigration judge.
Broader Policy Context: What’s at Stake?
Advocates say the administration’s push for rapid deportations is part of a larger plan to increase removals by cutting back on due process protections for immigrants. They point to several actions, including:
- Ending grants that funded lawyers for children and families separated during Trump’s first term
- Firing dozens of immigration judges in states like Massachusetts, California, and Louisiana
- Deporting people to remote locations outside the United States 🇺🇸, sometimes without hearings, including to El Salvador’s high-security prison
The administration argues these steps are needed to address the immigration court backlog, which leaves many detained migrants waiting months or years for their hearings.
What Happens Next? Supreme Court’s Role and Potential Impact
As of May 28, 2025, the Supreme Court has not yet decided whether to grant the DOJ’s emergency request. The migrants who were being deported to South Sudan remain in U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti.
This case is one of several where the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to step in on immigration issues. The outcome could have a major impact on how the government handles deportations, especially for people being sent to countries where they have no ties and may face danger.
If the Supreme Court sides with the DOJ, the administration could move forward with rapid deportations to third countries, even if those countries are not listed in a person’s original removal order. This could speed up removals for thousands of people, especially those with criminal convictions. However, it could also mean that some individuals are sent to places where they face serious risks, without a real chance to explain their fears.
If the Supreme Court upholds Judge Murphy’s injunction, the government would have to give immigrants more notice and a chance to raise concerns about torture or harm before deporting them to third countries. This would slow down the process but could offer more protection for vulnerable individuals.
Implications for Stakeholders
For Immigrants and Their Families
- Increased risk of removal: Immigrants with deportation orders, especially those with criminal convictions, could face faster removal to countries where they have no connections.
- Less time to prepare: Without notice and a chance to raise safety concerns, people may be sent to dangerous places without warning.
- Family separation: Rapid deportations could separate families, especially if individuals are sent to countries far from their loved ones.
For Immigration Courts and Lawyers
- Case backlog: The administration argues that rapid deportations will help reduce the backlog of over 3.5 million cases.
- Due process concerns: Lawyers and advocates worry that cutting back on hearings and notice will violate constitutional rights and put people at risk.
For U.S. Policy and International Relations
- Diplomatic challenges: Sending migrants to third countries can strain relationships with those countries, especially if they are not prepared to receive people who are not their citizens.
- International law: The United States 🇺🇸 is a party to treaties that ban sending people to countries where they could face torture. Rapid deportations could raise questions about compliance with these agreements.
Practical Guidance and Next Steps
For immigrants and families who may be affected by these policies:
- Stay informed: Watch for updates from official sources, such as the U.S. Department of Justice’s immigration page, for the latest on court decisions and policy changes.
- Know your rights: If you or a loved one has a deportation order, consult with a qualified immigration attorney. You may have the right to a hearing or to raise concerns about safety in a third country.
- Prepare documentation: Gather any evidence that shows why you or your family member should not be deported to a particular country, especially if there is a risk of harm or torture.
For legal professionals and advocates:
- Monitor court rulings: The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could set important precedents for future deportation cases.
- Advocate for due process: Continue to push for policies that protect the rights of immigrants and ensure fair treatment under the law.
Conclusion
The DOJ’s request for Supreme Court intervention in rapid deportations highlights the ongoing tension between the executive branch’s power to enforce immigration laws and the constitutional rights of immigrants. As reported by VisaVerge.com, the outcome of this case could shape the future of U.S. deportation policy, affecting thousands of lives and setting new legal standards for how the United States 🇺🇸 handles removals to third countries.
Whether the Supreme Court sides with the administration or upholds the current injunction, the decision will have far-reaching effects for immigrants, their families, and the broader immigration system. Staying informed and seeking legal help are the best steps for those who may be impacted by these fast-changing policies.
Learn Today
Department of Justice (DOJ) → U.S. federal department responsible for enforcing laws, including immigration and immigration court oversight.
Injunction → A court order that temporarily blocks a specific government action, such as deportations.
Third countries → Countries not the immigrant’s origin or originally listed for deportation but proposed for removal.
Solicitor General → Government lawyer representing federal interests before the Supreme Court.
Due process → Legal requirement that the government must respect all legal rights owed to a person.
This Article in a Nutshell
The DOJ’s emergency Supreme Court petition challenges legal limits on deportations to third countries without personal ties. The debate pits executive power against immigrant protections; outcomes could reshape U.S. deportation policies, impacting thousands, especially those with criminal records awaiting faster immigration enforcement amidst court backlogs.
— By VisaVerge.com
