![](https://worldnewsradar.id/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/BANNER-RENT-300X47-COLUMN-1.png"){kind=small}
On Friday, eight migrants facing deportation to South Sudan lost their final legal attempt to block their removal, following a ruling by a Massachusetts judge. The decision allowed the Trump administration to proceed with their deportation plans, despite concerns raised by legal advocates about the dangerous conditions awaiting them.
I. Legal Challenges and Emergency Hearings
1. Last-Minute Legal Filings Rejected
The Justice Department confirmed that the deportation was scheduled for Friday at 7 p.m. Eastern Time. Migrants’ attorneys had filed emergency motions on July 4—during the court holiday—seeking intervention from two separate courts in an effort to delay the deportation.
2. Conflicting Jurisdiction and Court Decisions
Attorneys representing the migrants submitted new petitions in Washington late Thursday, shortly after the Supreme Court clarified that a Massachusetts judge no longer had the authority to prevent the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) from carrying out the removals. District Judge Randolph Moss in Washington issued a temporary pause but referred the case back to Judge Brian Murphy in Boston, who ultimately denied the migrants’ request, citing the Supreme Court’s directive.
II. Deportation Amid Concerns of Safety and Punishment
1. Claims of Retaliation Dismissed
Judge Murphy noted that the migrants’ arguments—that the deportation was being used as retaliation—mirrored claims he had already rejected. As a result, he determined that the legal foundation of the new motion was not sufficient to halt their removal.
2. Broader Legal Battle Over Immigration Policy
This development marks another chapter in an ongoing legal struggle over the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement. The government’s strategy of deporting individuals to volatile regions has repeatedly been challenged in lower courts and escalated to the Supreme Court on two occasions.
III. The Deportees: Background and Risks
1. Origin and Criminal Backgrounds
The group of eight includes individuals from Vietnam, South Korea, Mexico, Laos, Cuba, and Myanmar, with only one migrant actually being a South Sudanese national. All of them had been convicted of serious crimes and were under official removal orders, which the Trump administration cited as justification for their deportation.
2. Post-Sentence Deportation Orders
Several of the men had completed or were nearing the end of their prison sentences. Although eligible for removal, their legal teams argued that deporting them to unstable countries posed unacceptable risks to their safety.
3. Danger in South Sudan
According to their legal counsel, the migrants could face life-threatening conditions upon arrival in South Sudan, a country still entrenched in civil conflict. The U.S. government’s own travel advisory warns against visiting the country without preparing for the possibility of death.
IV. Government Obstacles and Delays
1. Detention in Djibouti
The government had previously attempted to deport the group by transferring them to a U.S. naval base in Djibouti. However, Judge Murphy’s earlier ruling blocked further movement, requiring a legal hearing before deportation to a new country could proceed.
2. Legal Team Responds to Decision
Jennie Pasquarella, an attorney from the Seattle Clemency Project who represents the migrants, expressed disappointment over the rulings. She criticized both courts for denying the men the opportunity to argue for their safety and legal rights, calling the outcome “tragic.”
Conclusion
Despite repeated legal efforts and growing concerns over human rights and safety, the Trump administration’s deportation campaign continues, targeting individuals with criminal records and sending them to regions considered highly dangerous. The latest court rulings highlight the limitations of judicial intervention and the broader implications of immigration enforcement under policies prioritizing removal over humanitarian considerations.
