Supreme Court ruled in favor of Trump Administration to expedite deportations to third countries

The Supreme Court (SCOTUS) ruled in favor of the Trump Administration to allow it to expedite deportations to third countries. This is a series of cases in which deportees will go to countries where they have no family ties. The nation's highest court granted the White House's request and overturned a previous block by federal District Judge Brian Murphy.

In April, the judge, nominated by President Joe Biden, initially prohibited the government from executing deportations to third countries without first guaranteeing "due process." In May, a dozen individuals listed as violent criminals by the Justice Department were sent to Africa without the possibility of challenging their removal.

While the immigrants in question were from countries such as Vietnam, Cuba, Myanmar, Laos, and Mexico, the Trump Administration's initiative sought to remove people from the country whom the U.S. could not return to their countries of origin without offering them prior notice or opportunity to reclaim.

Faced with this situation, Murphy ordered these illegal immigrants to remain under U.S. custody until they can file legal claims. This gave those with deportation orders more time to challenge this designation in court.

For John Sauer, attorney general, the judge's action lacked "a plausible basis in law and jeopardizes this country’s foreign policy and national security interests." In late May, the DOJ requested that the Supreme Court intervene and authorize deportations to South Sudan and other countries.

In this context, the highest court in the land agreed with the White House, thus overruling Murphy's decision. The ruling was 6-3, with Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett in the majority. On the other side were Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The decision gives the Trump Administration more facilities to carry out the mass deportation policy. Specifically, it affects those cases involving countries that are reluctant to take back their own citizens when ordered deported from the United States.

While the majority did not offer an opinion on the case, the dissenting justices criticized the decision, calling it "incomprehensible" and "inexcusable."

"Rather than allowing our lower court colleagues to manage this high-stakes litigation with the care and attention it plainly requires, this Court now intervenes to grant the Government emergency relief from an order it has repeatedly defied," wrote Justice Sotomayor, joined by Kagan and Jackson.

"Apparently, the Court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in far-flung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a district court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. (...) That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable," they added.