South Sudan Among Destinations in Trump Deportation Plan

(Juba) – The United States Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting migrants to third party countries, including South Sudan, without giving them full notice or an opportunity to challenge their removal. The ruling marks a major shift in U.S. immigration policy with potential consequences for South Sudan and similar crisis-hit nations.

The court’s unsigned decision, issued Monday, paused a lower court order that had blocked the Trump administration from sending migrants to countries other than their own without informing them in advance and offering the chance to contest their removal under fears of torture. The decision did not resolve the broader legal debate but permits deportations to proceed while appeals continue.

In a sharply worded dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the court’s majority for intervening in an ongoing legal matter. She accused the Trump administration of repeatedly violating prior court orders and warned that the ruling “rewards lawlessness.” Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson joined her in opposition.

The Trump administration had argued that requiring additional notice and hearings overstepped the bounds of judicial authority and disrupted U.S. foreign policy. The administration claimed it could deport individuals to any third party country even if the migrants had no prior connection to that country, as long as the destination accepted them.

The case gained attention after reports surfaced that a group of migrants, including nationals from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, were being held by the U.S. in a military base in Djibouti. They were allegedly placed in a converted Conex shipping container without access to legal counsel and were due to be deported to South Sudan, a country none of them had ever visited.

According to the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which represents some of the migrants, the deportees had not been informed in time to file claims that they feared torture upon arrival. The group described the ruling as “horrifying,” arguing that the decision removes basic legal protections guaranteed under U.S. and international law.

The Convention Against Torture, signed by the United States in 1994, bars the transfer of individuals to countries where they might face torture. U.S. policy has traditionally required that migrants be notified in cases where assurances of safety have not been secured from the receiving country. However, Trump officials argued that such notice is unnecessary if a country like South Sudan agrees to receive a deportee and gives vague or informal assurances.

Some of the migrants had reportedly received less than 24 hours’ notice before planned removal. A lower court judge, Brian Murphy, had ruled that this was insufficient and ordered that migrants be given 10 days to raise claims and another 15 days to appeal any denial. That is the ruling the Supreme Court paused.

Though the Supreme Court allowed the Trump administration to proceed, Judge Murphy reaffirmed a separate order Monday that still grants limited protections to the detained group in Djibouti. His directive remains in force and requires that they receive a “reasonable fear” interview with legal representation.

The U.N. and international rights groups have raised alarms over deportations to South Sudan. The country is facing food insecurity, political instability, and rising violence. Earlier this year, the U.N. warned that millions in South Sudan remain at risk of hunger amid displacement and disrupted agricultural production.

“This is not just a legal issue. It’s a humanitarian one,” said one rights advocate. “Sending someone to a country like South Sudan where they could face death or torture, especially with no ties to that country, should never be done without full legal protections.”

The Trump administration has filed over a dozen emergency immigration appeals to the Supreme Court, most of which have succeeded. Earlier this year, the court cleared the way for the U.S. to end Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans and suspend humanitarian parole for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and others.

Critics argue the ruling sets a dangerous precedent by expanding executive power in deportation policy without ensuring safeguards for individuals at risk. They also warned of diplomatic fallout, especially as some target countries, including Libya have denied any agreement to accept deportees. South Sudanese officials have not publicly confirmed whether they agreed to accept the migrants mentioned in this case.