Photo Credit:Getty Images
In a stunning rebuke, a federal judge has declared that the U.S. government “unquestionably” violated his court order by deporting eight men to South Sudan without allowing them the opportunity to challenge their removal to a third country. The case has drawn widespread attention, not only for the legal irregularities but also for what critics are calling an alarming disregard for due process.
The controversy erupted when Judge Brian Murphy, who had earlier ruled that migrants must have a “meaningful opportunity” to contest being deported to a country that is not their own, learned that the Department of Homeland Security had already placed the men on a flight. During a heated courtroom session, he expressed disbelief that the men had no real chance to object, stating, “I don’t see how anybody could say that these individuals had a meaningful opportunity to object.”
The government defended its actions by claiming ambiguity in the judge’s prior order. Justice Department attorneys cited “misunderstanding,” while also refusing to disclose the exact destination of the flight, citing safety concerns. However, Judge Murphy appeared unmoved by these explanations and hinted at the possibility of contempt proceedings against Homeland Security officials in the near future.
The Department of Homeland Security has labeled the deported individuals as “uniquely barbaric monsters,” convicted of crimes ranging from murder to the rape of vulnerable victims. Yet, critics argue that even those convicted of heinous crimes are entitled to legal safeguards. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons maintained that third-country deportation is a necessary tactic when home countries refuse to accept their citizens.
One case that exemplifies the controversy is that of Nyo Myint, a Myanmar citizen convicted of sexual assault. According to his attorney Jonathan Ryan, Myint received conflicting deportation notices on the same day, listing two different countries—South Africa and South Sudan—as destinations. These notices were in English, a language Myint reportedly does not understand.
Ryan condemned the government’s actions, stating, “These people were purposefully selected by the government for this maneuver, to divert our
attention from the blatant disregard for a federal judicial order.” He warned that allowing selective application of legal rights sets a dangerous precedent for American democracy.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is expanding its network of third-country agreements. Countries like Rwanda and El Salvador have already confirmed ongoing negotiations, while several others, including Moldova and Angola, have been named in media reports.
As the legal battle intensifies, the U.S. judicial system faces a critical question: Can national security concerns ever justify overriding fundamental legal protections?
The government defended its actions by claiming ambiguity in the judge’s prior order. Justice Department attorneys cited “misunderstanding,” while also refusing to disclose the exact destination of the flight, citing safety concerns. However, Judge Murphy appeared unmoved by these explanations and hinted at the possibility of contempt proceedings against Homeland Security officials in the near future.
The Department of Homeland Security has labeled the deported individuals as “uniquely barbaric monsters,” convicted of crimes ranging from murder to the rape of vulnerable victims. Yet, critics argue that even those convicted of heinous crimes are entitled to legal safeguards. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director Todd Lyons maintained that third-country deportation is a necessary tactic when home countries refuse to accept their citizens.
One case that exemplifies the controversy is that of Nyo Myint, a Myanmar citizen convicted of sexual assault. According to his attorney Jonathan Ryan, Myint received conflicting deportation notices on the same day, listing two different countries—South Africa and South Sudan—as destinations. These notices were in English, a language Myint reportedly does not understand.
Ryan condemned the government’s actions, stating, “These people were purposefully selected by the government for this maneuver, to divert our
attention from the blatant disregard for a federal judicial order.” He warned that allowing selective application of legal rights sets a dangerous precedent for American democracy.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is expanding its network of third-country agreements. Countries like Rwanda and El Salvador have already confirmed ongoing negotiations, while several others, including Moldova and Angola, have been named in media reports.
As the legal battle intensifies, the U.S. judicial system faces a critical question: Can national security concerns ever justify overriding fundamental legal protections?
