(UNITED STATES) Lawyers for five men deported under a fast-moving program run by the Trump administration say their clients were denied basic due process and sent to danger in a country they do not know. The men—part of a larger group taken from an ICE facility in Texas in May—were told they were being transferred within the United States. Instead, they were flown to a U.S. military site in Djibouti, restrained near a shipping container for weeks, and ultimately deported to South Sudan in July.
Their legal team has now filed lawsuits, arguing the government ignored protections under U.S. law and international treaties, and that the men had no meaningful chance to challenge their removal.
Supreme Court stay and immediate impact
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay of a lower court injunction that had required the government to give written notice and allow protection claims before any third-country transfer. That stay—temporary, but immediate in effect—allowed immigration officials to continue sending people to countries other than their own while the broader case proceeds in district court.
The stay is not a final ruling on legality, but it has immediate real-world effects: removals continued while litigation proceeds. The five men deported are at the center of this legal fight, which reaches from local detention wings to the highest court in the country and has become a stress test for how far executive power can go in shifting the destination of deportations.
The legal battle centers on two core issues: the scope of executive authority over immigration enforcement and the right to due process.
Lawyers representing the men say the government violated non-refoulement—the principle barring sending anyone to a place where they face a real risk of torture or persecution. They also say officials bypassed safeguards that typically apply when someone raises a fear of harm, including access to counsel and a chance to present evidence. The government rejects those claims and points to urgent national security and public safety needs.
The five men’s account and wider concerns
Attorneys say the five men were told they were headed to Louisiana but were instead flown to Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. There, they were kept shackled for weeks near a shipping container before being sent to South Sudan—none of them citizens of that country, and all of them from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, or Vietnam, according to filings.
Those facts, lawyers argue, show how a person can be removed to a place with no ties and no family support, magnifying the risks. Critics call the conditions—weeks of restraints near a shipping container, followed by removal to a country in conflict—part of a larger pattern that undermines legal protections.
Human rights organizations warn that third-country deportations can shift danger rather than reduce it. They also note that host countries face intense pressure to accept people who are not citizens and who may arrive without documents, shelter, or support. South Sudan, the destination in this case, has faced ongoing instability and violence—raising the stakes for any claim that the government complied with its duty to avoid refoulement.
How the policy is being expanded
The Trump administration has expanded the use of third-country deportations, often to African nations, arguing that faster removals deter unlawful crossings and reduce strain on the system. Officials, including border czar Tom Homan, have framed the policy as a necessary response to what they describe as record enforcement challenges.
Key policy elements and claims:
– Officials say removals will focus on people with criminal histories or national security concerns, though the program’s reach appears broader.
– According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, the administration is on pace to deport roughly 500,000 people in 2025—below a stated target of one million a year but still a sharp rise in third-country transfers.
– The administration has worked to secure agreements with nearly 60 countries, many in Africa, to accept deportees who are not their citizens.
Critics say speed has replaced fairness: minimal notice, transfers across multiple jurisdictions, and long-distance flights make it nearly impossible for people to contact attorneys or file claims, even in life-or-death situations.
Legal protections at stake
The administration’s broader enforcement strategy rests on two pillars:
- Expanded expedited removal
- Expedited removal under INA § 235 allows the government to deport certain people quickly, without a hearing before an immigration judge, if they cannot show two years of continuous presence in the United States.
- Expanded detention capacity
- The “Big Beautiful Bill Act,” passed in July 2025, boosted ICE’s detention budget by 308%, according to policy analysts. That funding surge increased detention beds, flights, and coordination with military resources.
When paired with third-country transfers, the speed and secrecy grow: people can be moved across facilities, states, and continents so fast that even those with valid fear claims struggle to speak to a lawyer, collect proof, or reach family.
Legal safeguards under dispute:
– Written notice of transfer and destination
– Opportunity to file Convention Against Torture (CAT) claims
– Access to counsel and interpreters
– Time and means to collect or present evidence
A district court had ordered the government in April to provide written notice before third-country removals and to allow CAT claims. The Supreme Court’s June stay paused key parts of that order, enabling continued removals while the lower-court case proceeds.
How the program works on the ground
Typical steps applied with speed:
– Expedited removal under INA § 235 for people lacking two years continuous U.S. presence.
– Third-country transfers arranged with minimal notice, often after moves between ICE facilities that make attorney contact difficult.
– Reliance on increased detention capacity, funded by the July 2025 budget surge, to hold people while flights are planned.
– Continued removals during litigation, enabled by the Supreme Court’s June stay.
In practice, advocates say, the window to assert fears is narrow:
– People may not receive clear written notice of a third-country destination.
– Phone access can be limited or monitored.
– Language support may be scarce.
– Finding a lawyer from a remote facility—or from a military site outside the country—is very difficult.
For the five men deported, those barriers were decisive, according to their attorneys.
Diplomatic and practical consequences
Scaling third-country deportations magnifies diplomatic friction:
– Many of the nearly 60 countries approached are in Africa, with varying capacity to receive, house, or protect new arrivals.
– Some receiving countries are politically sensitive or subject to U.S. travel considerations.
– Critics argue the policy exports a U.S. enforcement problem to smaller, less-resourced countries.
Supporters counter that:
– Strong measures are needed to restore border order and deter repeat entries.
– Third-country options are necessary when a home country refuses to accept returns or delays travel documents.
– Courts, they say, should defer to the executive in fast-moving removal contexts.
Human impact
Behind policy language are real people: spouses, parents, and children trying to hold families together across detention walls and continents.
Reported family experiences:
– Days without updates, frantic calls to public defenders, and silence after the men left Texas.
– Families lost contact after flights to Djibouti and did not hear back until the men reached South Sudan—often through intermediaries.
– Once in unfamiliar countries, deportees may face immediate detention, extortion, violence, homelessness, and no viable complaint system.
Human rights groups note that arrival in an unfamiliar country rarely offers effective protection “on arrival,” especially where formal complaint systems are weak or absent.
Practical steps for those at risk
These steps do not guarantee protection but can create a record that matters in later litigation:
- Keep proof of presence ready. Documents that show lawful or continuous presence can matter in expedited removal decisions.
- Memorize or carry contact details for a trusted lawyer or nonprofit. Written information can be critical if phones are taken.
- If detained, ask in simple terms to speak to a lawyer and to state any fear of harm. Use clear language: “I fear being harmed or tortured if removed.”
- Families can try to track loved ones through the ICE Detainee Locator: https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search. Persistence is key when transfers happen fast.
- Reach out to the American Immigration Lawyers Association at 1-800-954-0254 or the Immigration Advocates Network for referrals to nonprofit legal providers.
Even a brief note written in detention or a voicemail to counsel can show that a person tried to assert rights before removal.
Courts, remedies, and what to watch
The district court will continue to hear evidence about notice, access to counsel, and the treatment reported by the men. Possible outcomes:
– If the district court rules key steps were ignored, it could reinstate stronger safeguards (written notice, CAT screenings, expanded access to counsel).
– The case could return to the Supreme Court, which might decide the larger question of how much process is due before third-country deportations.
What to monitor in coming months:
– Court schedules and any renewed injunctions restoring written notice and pre-transfer protection screenings.
– Diplomatic reactions from receiving countries, especially those reluctant to accept non-citizens.
– Reports from human rights groups about conditions for deportees after arrival, including detention, violence, or barriers to legal status.
– Budget shifts affecting detention capacity and flight operations, including follow-up to the 308% detention funding increase.
– Administrative guidance that could, without a court order, add safeguards such as guaranteed phone access before transfers.
Broader implications and concluding points
Opponents emphasize unequal treatment in the larger policy framework—contrasts in refugee admissions and selective openness—that they say reflect bias and undermine the refugee system. For immigration attorneys and nonprofits, triage has become the norm: cases move quickly, across state lines and out of the country, and staff scramble to reach clients before transfers.
Policy analysts stress the United States must balance enforcement with legal obligations it has pledged to honor. Non-refoulement and due process are not optional; they travel with the person and the plane.
The five men deported have become the human face of a policy debate about whether speed can coexist with real safeguards. Their treatment—shackling, secret transfers, and removal to a conflict-torn country—has reshaped legal arguments and public opinion. Their lawyers seek remedies including reopening their cases and imposing strict procedures for any future third-country transfers.
For people at risk today, help exists but is limited. Families can try the ICE Detainee Locator: https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search and call 1-800-954-0254 for referrals from the American Immigration Lawyers Association. Nonprofits in the Immigration Advocates Network can help with emergency paperwork and safety plans for dependents.
The coming months will bring more hearings, more data, and more reporting from receiving countries. Each piece will inform how courts assess the balance between executive power and due process. At stake are not only legal rules but the lives behind them—the five men deported to South Sudan, and the many others who could follow if the policy holds.
This Article in a Nutshell
The rapid deportation of five men from a Texas ICE facility to South Sudan—after weeks shackled near a shipping container at Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti—has prompted lawsuits accusing the Trump administration of denying due process and violating non-refoulement obligations. Attorneys argue detainees were misled about domestic transfers, denied written notice, counsel access, and CAT screening opportunities. On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed a district court injunction that would have required pre-transfer written notice and protection screenings, enabling continued third-country removals while litigation proceeds. The policy expands expedited removal under INA § 235 and relied on detention capacity increased by the July 2025 “Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Supporters cite national security and deterrence; critics warn speed undermines fairness and shifts danger to less-resourced receiving countries. The district court’s upcoming rulings could reinstate safeguards or further define executive authority, affecting thousands of removals, diplomatic relations, and the lives of deported individuals.
