President Donald Trump boards Air Force One to depart Joint Base Andrews, Md., Friday, May 23, 2025 (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta).
A federal judge in Massachusetts has declined to stop a ruling from last week stating that the Trump administration had breached a preliminary injunction by promptly deporting six migrants to war-torn South Sudan – a nation none of them originate from – without affording them due process or a fair chance to express concerns about potential persecution or harm.
U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, who has suggested that the violation could be seen as criminal contempt of court, chastised the administration on Monday for distorting both the court’s earlier directive and the stances presented by attorneys from the Department of Justice in the case.
“Defendants have misrepresented this Court’s ruling, all the while creating the very disorder they denounce,” Murphy stated in a 17-page document. “By rushing to deport six individuals to unstable South Sudan in clear violation of the law and the Court’s injunction, Defendants left the Court with no option but to conclude that they had defied the Preliminary Injunction.”
Murphy last month issued a preliminary injunction barring the government from sending migrants to third countries without giving them a “reasonable opportunity” to raise concerns about that country and the possible violence they could face under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). Last week, he called an emergency hearing after the administration removed the six migrants to South Sudan with less than 16 hours of advanced notice, “most of which were non-waking hours, none within the business day.” The detainees also had virtually no means of communication after being informed of their removal.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
During the emergency hearing, the DOJ asserted that administration officials misunderstood Murphy’s injunction because he had not been specific enough regarding what a “reasonable opportunity” to express fear entailed.
The court ordered the administration to keep the detainees onboard the plane in South Sudan until they were provided reasonable fear interviews. The court also imposed a minimum of 10 days for detainees to rase fear-based claims under CAT prior to removals to third countries. At the suggestion of the DOJ, Murphy allowed the government to “keep the individuals out of the country and finish their process abroad.”
The Justice Department responded by claiming the court’s order was “extraordinary” and imposed “highly burdensome requirements” on the government to keep the “dangerous criminals” detained in a “sensitive location” without “clear knowledge of when, how, or where this Court will tolerate their release.”
The DOJ further asserted that Murphy’s order placed “impermissible” constraints on President Donald Trump’s ability to carry out his Article II powers, including “his powers to command the military, manage relations with foreign nations, and execute our nation’s immigration authorities.”
“The Court’s Orders are premised on an erroneous conclusion that Defendants failed to provide ‘meaningful opportunity’ for six class members to assert a claim for protection under CAT, despite having allowed the six class members an opportunity that is eminently reasonable in the removal context,” the DOJ wrote in the motion seeking reconsideration or a stay pending appeal. “Moreover, the Orders impermissibly infringe on the President’s inherent Article II authority to conduct foreign affairs and serve as Commander-in-Chief. The Orders also improperly interfere with the President’s ability to faithfully execute immigration laws.”
But the government’s complaints fell on deaf ears, as Murphy explained that his order never required the government to conduct their proceedings overseas, writing that the administration could “simply return to the status quo of roughly one week ago” by returning the migrants to the U.S. or choose “any other location to complete the required process.”
“It cannot be said enough that this is the result Defendants asked for,” Murphy wrote. “In doing so, the Court offered Defendants a method of compliance that both guaranteed the procedural rights due to the class members but was less exacting than having to turn around a chartered plane. The Court considered Defendants’ prerogative in the sensitive and political areas of immigration and foreign policy and offered Defendants complete discretion to provide these interviews in the time and manner they deemed best.”
The judge continued to criticize the administration for complaining about the “hardship” of having to carry out “impromptu immigration proceedings on foreign soil,” saying “that was — and continues to be — Defendants’ daily choice,” adding, “To say more would be to paint the lily.”
