Attorneys for the immigrants countered that the administration is not barred from deporting individuals—it is simply required to follow existing legal protections designed to prevent harm upon removal.
After additional motions were filed in June, the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 unsigned opinion clarifying that its earlier order suspending Judge Murphy’s injunction remains in full effect. As a result, the May 21 order is no longer enforceable. Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, with Sotomayor raising concern that the government’s plan could lead to serious risks for the deported individuals.
Justice Elena Kagan, although previously opposed to permitting third-country deportations, joined the majority in this instance. She stated that, although she disagreed with the Court’s original position, the lower courts were now bound by the Supreme Court’s ruling.
In her dissent, Justice Sotomayor warned that the government may proceed with transferring individuals to South Sudan despite the dangers they could face. She criticized the lack of explanation from the high court and emphasized the need for clarity and transparency in such sensitive decisions.
This case continues to raise pressing questions about the balance between immigration enforcement and human rights protections—particularly when removals involve countries facing ongoing instability or conflict.
What are your thoughts? Should courts have more say in where immigrants are deported? Or should national security concerns take precedence? Let us know in the comments below—your voice matters.