In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has upheld the Trump administration's controversial move to deport eight illegal immigrants to South Sudan. The 7-2 ruling, delivered on August 1, 2025, overturns previous lower court restrictions, marking a significant victory for the third-country deportation policy initiated by President Donald Trump.
The eight individuals, originally from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, were in transit to South Sudan when a U.S. District Judge attempted to halt the deportation. However, the Trump administration rerouted the plane to a military base in Djibouti, where the immigrants have since been detained.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy had previously issued an injunction, asserting that the government must not deport individuals to third countries where they could face torture or death. His May 21 order attempted to enforce this injunction, but the Supreme Court majority disagreed. The Court's unsigned opinion stated that their June 23 stay effectively made Murphy's injunction unenforceable.
Justice Elena Kagan, typically aligned with the Court's liberal justices, sided with the conservative majority. She concurred that the district court could not override the Supreme Court's stay. Conversely, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor strongly dissented, criticizing the decision for potentially exposing the deportees to life-threatening conditions in South Sudan, a nation known for crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.
The ruling has sparked intense debate surrounding the balance between judicial authority and the executive branch's control over immigration and foreign policy. Trump's Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued that the lower court's judicially created procedures were causing chaos and interfering with diplomatic and national security efforts. In contrast, Judge Murphy maintained that his order was not affected by the Supreme Court's stay, leading to urgent requests for clarity from the Trump administration.
This case highlights the ongoing conflict between President Trump's stringent immigration policies and federal judges who seek to limit his administration's reach. A senior administration official framed the Supreme Court's decision as a step toward restoring law and order to a fractured immigration system. Meanwhile, critics argue that the deportations may violate human rights and international law, given the State Department's travel warnings about South Sudan's dangerous conditions.
The Supreme Court's ruling now clears a path for the Trump administration to conduct third-country deportations more efficiently, bypassing what they perceive as activist judges. For the eight detained men, the path to South Sudan is open once again, as the orders of the lower court judge appointed by President Biden have been overruled.
