Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressed concerns on Friday regarding a federal court order that requires the U.S. government to hold deportees bound for South Sudan. He stated that this ruling could lead to significant and irreparable damage to U.S. foreign policy.
The Trump administration acted swiftly, submitting two legal documents after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts determined that the deportation flight would violate a previous injunction. This injunction allows deportees a chance to contest their removal to a country other than their own.
A U.S. Department of Justice official emphasized the urgency of the situation, stating that the judicial intervention is necessary to restore the full authority of President Trump under Article II of the Constitution to manage foreign relations.
Impact on U.S. Diplomacy
Rubio highlighted that the court’s decision has already complicated U.S. diplomatic efforts with Libya, South Sudan, and Djibouti, raising serious concerns about the president’s constitutional authority in foreign policy matters.
According to Rubio, the court’s orders have interfered with discreet diplomatic engagements and have worsened internal political and security complications in Libya.
Threat to Relations with South Sudan
Additionally, the court order jeopardizes attempts to rebuild a productive relationship with the government of Juba, the capital of South Sudan. Before the court’s intervention, South Sudan had refused to accept a national of its own but had recently indicated a willingness to collaborate more closely with the U.S. government.
Concerns Regarding Djibouti
Rubio also pointed out the negative implications of the order for Djibouti, strategically situated in the Horn of Africa. This location hosts the only U.S. military base on the African continent, emphasizing its importance to U.S. national security interests.
The deportees are currently being held at a U.S. Naval base in Djibouti, and there are concerns about the management of these individuals given the court’s ruling.
Calls for Reconsideration
In the second filing, the Trump administration urged the court to reconsider its order, describing it as imposing highly burdensome requirements. Officials expressed alarm over the detention of individuals classified as dangerous criminals in a sensitive location without clarity regarding their release.
The filing remarked on the constraints the court’s orders place on the president’s powers, which include commanding the military, managing foreign relations, and executing immigration regulations.
Legal Justifications for Deportation
The administration defended its actions by asserting that the deportees had received due process under U.S. law and were lawfully removed from the country. They requested that the court either stay the order or reconsider it entirely.
According to the administration, the deportees had only to express a fear of removal to South Sudan to access additional protections mandated by the injunction issued on April 18, 2025. Since they did not do so, the Department of Homeland Security aimed to deport these individuals, whom they classified as having committed particularly serious violations of U.S. law, to a location where they would not pose further threats.
Details of the Recent Deportation Flight
This week, a deportation flight departed from Texas carrying eight migrants from various countries, including Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, and South Sudan. The ruling from Judge Murphy followed complaints from lawyers representing immigrants from Myanmar and Vietnam. They claimed that the Trump administration was unlawfully deporting their clients to third-party countries, a move they argued was contrary to a standing court order.
According to Murphy’s ruling, the government must maintain custody and control of those being expelled to South Sudan or any other third country. This measure is intended to facilitate the return of individuals should the court later determine that their deportation was unlawful.
Recent Changes in Visa Policy
Earlier this year, Rubio announced that the U.S. would revoke visas held by South Sudanese passport holders, ceasing the issuance of new visas. This policy shift was attributed to the South Sudanese transitional government’s failure to accept the timely return of its repatriated citizens.
The United States maintains agreements for third-party deportation with several countries, with El Salvador being one of the most notable examples. This country has accepted hundreds of Venezuelan deportees during Trump’s administration, highlighting the ongoing complexities of U.S. immigration policy.
Future Implications
The legal battle surrounding this court order has far-reaching implications for U.S. foreign relations and immigration policy. As the Trump administration navigates its next steps, the need for a balanced approach to both immigration enforcement and diplomatic relations will remain paramount.
This developing story illustrates the challenges inherent in managing the intersection of immigration law and foreign policy, and it underscores the significant impact legal decisions can have on international relations.
As the situation evolves, all eyes will be on the legal and diplomatic maneuvers that follow.
