A federal judge in Boston ruled Wednesday, May 21, that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) violated a prior court order when it deported eight men to South Sudan without providing adequate legal notice or a fair opportunity to object. The men, who had criminal convictions, were removed despite a preliminary injunction barring such transfers without due process
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy criticized the government’s handling of the removals, stating the men received less than 24 hours’ notice and lacked access to attorneys and interpreters. He also cited the dangers of deporting individuals to South Sudan, which remains under a Level 4 “Do Not Travel” advisory from the U.S. State Department due to armed conflict, violent crime, and the risk of kidnapping.
What did the court order require?
Judge Murphy’s latest ruling did not require the deportees to be returned to the United States, but it set strict conditions for how DHS may proceed in the future. He ordered officials to conduct “reasonable fear” interviews with the men, providing at least 10 days’ notice, access to legal counsel and interpreters, and private interview settings – even if it requires renting a room offsite.
If a migrant demonstrates a credible fear, immigration proceedings must be reopened. Even without such a finding, the government must still offer at least 15 days to contest removal. The judge emphasized that these conditions must match the legal access migrants would receive if they had remained in U.S. custody.
How did DHS respond to the ruling?
Homeland Security officials strongly rejected the court’s findings. DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin called the decision “deranged,” asserting the deported men were convicted of violent crimes including murder, rape and child abuse. She argued the administration acted within legal bounds and that the migrants posed an ongoing threat to public safety.
ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons said that when the migrants’ home countries refused to accept them, DHS worked with the State Department to identify a third country — South Sudan — that was willing to receive them under a safe country agreement.
Who were the individuals deported?
The deportees came from several countries, including Burma, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba and Mexico. DHS said their offenses included first-degree murder, sexual assault, armed robbery and crimes against minors. Two individuals from Burma were identified as having committed serious sexual offenses involving children and disabled victims.
Officials did not disclose where the men were ultimately taken, and South Sudanese authorities said no deportees had arrived on Wednesday, May 21. A police spokesperson warned that any noncitizens who do arrive could be investigated and sent elsewhere. McLaughlin declined to provide their current whereabouts but said they remain in DHS custody.
What are attorneys and advocates saying?
Attorneys for the deported men argue the process failed to meet legal standards and created serious barriers to representation. They said legal access, interpreter availability and remote interviews, especially across time zones, would make it nearly impossible for the men to present credible fear claims from abroad. Trina Realmuto of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance called the process a “logistical nightmare,” and other advocates warned the men were being held on a tarmac without the ability to consult legal counsel. Judge Murphy said the government must fix these systemic barriers before continuing with any further deportation proceedings.
