A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has temporarily halted the deportation of eight immigrants to South Sudan, a country embroiled in civil conflict. However, his ruling was swiftly followed by another decision from a Boston judge, allowing the Trump administration to proceed with the removals the day after the Supreme Court approved their deportation.
On July 4, District Judge Randolph Moss initially placed a temporary hold on the deportations while he considered an emergency appeal presented by the immigrants’ lawyers. During an afternoon session, Moss determined he lacked the jurisdiction to block the removals. He stated that the matter was better suited for Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, whose previous rulings had put a stop to the administration’s efforts to deport individuals to the war-torn nation.
Later that Friday evening, Murphy issued a ruling indicating that the Supreme Court’s orders constrained his ability to intervene further. “This Court interprets these Supreme Court orders as binding,” Murphy wrote, denying the petitioners’ request based on the similar claims raised previously.
The administration planned to move the immigrants from a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, where they have been held for weeks, to South Sudan. None of the immigrants are originally from South Sudan, and the U.S. government has warned against travel to the country due to its ongoing violence.
The immigrants were initially transported to Djibouti, but further movement was halted after Murphy ruled that no immigrant could be sent to a new country without a court hearing. The Supreme Court had previously vacated this decision and clarified that the deportation could move forward.
On Thursday night, the Court issued a new directive allowing the administration to proceed with the removals, prompting an emergency legal request from the immigrants’ lawyers to delay their deportation just hours later.
The temporary reprieve captured attention from legal observers and advocates alike, who continue to debate the implications of these deportations amidst ongoing humanitarian concerns in South Sudan.
This article was automatically written by OpenAI. The individuals, facts, circumstances, and story may be inaccurate, and any article can be requested for removal, retraction, or correction by writing an email to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.