In a bold move to protect American interests, the Trump administration has turned to the Supreme Court to remove judge-imposed restrictions hampering the deportation of criminal aliens.
See the tweet below!
Faced with an overreaching judicial order that Judge Brian Murphy issued, this is a pivotal moment for President Trump’s immigration policy.
The resolution of this conflict will either maintain the United States’ sovereignty over its immigration affairs or see it fall victim to unelected bureaucrats.
The Trump administration’s emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court challenges due process procedures that affect immigrants slated for deportation to third countries.
Judge Murphy’s nationwide mandate demands diplomatic and logistical responses that strain government efforts to swiftly remove criminal aliens from the U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer has called these procedures a “diplomatic and logistical morass” causing “significant and irreparable harm.”
These procedures, under Judge Murphy, require notification to immigrants of their destination, time to voice safety concerns, and the opportunity to challenge findings before removal.
The administration argues such measures are excessive, going beyond what the law mandates while obstructing critical national security and foreign policy efforts.
The Supreme Court’s prior decision acknowledged due process for non-citizens but left specifics up to circumstances.
Judge Murphy cited a lack of meaningful opportunity for detainees to object to deportation destinations—a violation of rights under the Convention Against Torture.
However, the administration insists these imposed rules extend beyond legitimate authority.
With third-country partners like Libya and Costa Rica, Trump’s policies align with holding accountable foreign nations who refuse their citizens back.
“Based on what I’ve learned, I don’t see how anybody could say that these individuals had a meaningful opportunity to object. If I was in any of those groups and I was going to be deported to South Sudan, I would need an opportunity to investigate that and to be able to articulate a well-founded fear about why being returned to South Sudan would be would result in torture or death. The department did not do it. In this case, they did not offer any opportunity to object,” Judge Murphy said, cited by ABC News.
Despite the district court’s ruling, eight migrants were reportedly sent to South Sudan, defying restrictions.
Murphy’s injunction demands “reasonable fear” interviews, yet Sauer emphasized the prolongation of removal endangers American foreign policy—a choice between foreign custody or returning criminals to U.S. soil.
The administration’s appeal awaits the Supreme Court’s decision. The stakes are high and will set precedent for future immigration policy and judicial boundaries.
“Those judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process,” Sauer declared, cited by CBS News.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the challenge between ensuring due process and maintaining national security.
Trump’s commitment to protecting America’s interests and citizens remains steadfast.
The question is whether the Supreme Court will uphold his efforts or allow judicial activism to dictate America’s immigration policies.
The Trump administration on Tuesday filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court seeking to lift what it called "onerous" due process procedures imposed by a federal judge for immigrants slated for deportation to a third country other than their own. https://t.co/wXj2xtRK6M
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) May 27, 2025
