A federal judge rebuked Trump officials for defying court orders in migrant deportation case involving South Sudan.

Federal Court Condemns Handling of Migrant Removals

A U.S. judge in Massachusetts has sharply criticized the Trump administration for its handling of migrant deportations to South Sudan, accusing officials of ignoring court orders and creating disorder. The clash escalated Monday night when U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy refused a request to alter a previous ruling requiring the government to keep six deported migrants in custody for due process hearings.

Murphy’s ruling demands that the six migrants, who were deported without notice or legal consultation, remain under U.S. custody at a military base in Djibouti until they each receive a “reasonable fear interview.” These interviews allow migrants to explain why they fear persecution or torture if returned to South Sudan. As of Monday night, no such interviews had occurred.

“It turns out that having immigration proceedings on another continent is harder and more logistically cumbersome than defendants anticipated,” Murphy wrote, adding that the administration could return the migrants to the U.S. to fulfill the interviews.

The judge accused Trump officials of distorting his orders and generating the very chaos they complained of. He emphasized that his instructions allowed for flexibility at the government's own request, and did not mandate converting a military base into a processing center.

Murphy presides over a class-action lawsuit involving migrants deported to countries like South Sudan, El Salvador, Guatemala, and others. The litigation challenges the legality of third-country removals conducted without adequate notice or judicial review. Federal judges, including Murphy, have repeatedly ruled that the administration violated due process protections under the U.S. Constitution.

In his 17-page order, Murphy denounced the administration's failure to follow through with required legal procedures. He cited conflicting statements from the Justice Department about what constitutes adequate removal notice. At one point, officials claimed 24 hours was sufficient—only to later disregard this in removing the migrants without prior warning.

Murphy also highlighted the lack of legal representation for the deported individuals. In one case, a scheduled meeting between a migrant and their attorney was reportedly canceled by ICE without rescheduling. The judge noted that the deported migrants had no chance to understand the conditions in South Sudan, a nation the U.S. has advised its own citizens to avoid due to violence and instability.

The administration has resisted court directives to return migrants to the U.S., prompting further legal scrutiny. While the White House accuses judges of political activism, Murphy countered such claims, writing, “That does not change due process.”

In a direct rebuttal to President Trump’s remarks on social media accusing judges of protecting “criminal illegal immigrant monsters,” Murphy wrote that while class members may have criminal histories, the Constitution's due process protections remain firm.

“The court treats its obligation to these principles with the seriousness that anyone committed to the rule of law should understand,” he concluded, adding that the administration’s lack of clarity appears to be a deliberate tactic to delay or evade compliance.