The Supreme Court has cleared the path for the Trump administration to deport a group of immigrants held at a U.S. military base in Djibouti to South Sudan.
In a brief opinion issued on Friday, the justices affirmed that their prior order, which stayed a federal judge’s ruling in Massachusetts that had restricted the government’s ability to deport immigrants to countries not explicitly named in their removal orders, applies in full to the eight immigrants currently in U.S. custody in Djibouti.
The order came less than two weeks after the high court temporarily stayed a ruling by U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, whose order barred the federal government from deporting immigrants to “third countries”—those not explicitly named in their removal orders—without first ensuring, through a series of safeguards, that the individuals would not face torture upon deportation.
Murphy’s May 21 ruling found that the government violated his April 18 order by attempting to deport eight men to South Sudan. The U.S. has evacuated all non-emergency personnel from South Sudan, and the State Department advises against travel there due to “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.”
The flight carrying the immigrants bound for South Sudan instead landed in nearby Djibouti, where the men have since been held at a U.S. military base.
On May 27, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court to stay Murphy’s April 18 order, seeking permission to proceed with “third country” removals while the legal battle over the practice unfolds.
U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer contended that Murphy’s “judicially created procedures are currently wreaking havoc on the third-country removal process” and “disrupt[ing] sensitive diplomatic, foreign policy, and national-security efforts.”
Lawyers representing the immigrants facing potential third-country removals urged the justices to uphold Murphy’s order. They emphasized that the government could still proceed with these deportations, but Murphy’s order “simply requires” the Trump administration “to comply with the law” in doing so.
Several hours after the Supreme Court responded to the Trump administration’s first request, made on June 23, Murphy then claimed that his May 21 order remained unaffected by the high court’s decision.
The Trump administration returned to the Supreme Court the following day, requesting that the justices clarify the federal government’s authority to proceed with deporting the immigrants currently held in Djibouti. Sauer urged the court to act swiftly to address what he called Murphy’s “unprecedented defiance” of the court’s authority.
In Thursday’s brief, an unsigned 7-2 opinion, the majority indicated that the court’s “June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
Two of the Supreme Court’s liberals, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, while the third liberal, Justice Elena Kagan, sided with the court’s conservative majority.
She noted that she had previously disagreed with the Supreme Court’s original ruling permitting third-country removals to proceed. “But a majority of this court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this court has stayed,” she wrote.
The eight illegal immigrants include individuals from Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, reports noted.
Sotomayor’s dissent contended that “[w]hat the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death.”
She argued that the court should not have considered the government’s request at all, as the government should have made its arguments in the lower courts first. Moreover, she suggested that the Supreme Court’s “continued refusal to justify its extraordinary decisions in this case, even as it faults lower courts for failing to properly divine their import, is indefensible.”
In a shocking turn of events, Missouri Rep. Cori Bush, a prominent member of the far-left “Squad,” has lost her congressional seat in a Democratic primary. Her loss marks a significant moment in the political landscape, as she becomes the second Squad member to face defeat, following the loss of Rep. Jamaal Bowman.With Wesley Bell, St. Louis County prosecutor, leading Bush by a commanding double-digit margin, her political future is now in jeopardy.
Bush, who has served as the representative for Missouri’s 1st Congressional District since 2021, saw her once-promising political career take a drastic turn after her primary defeat.
Bell garnered 54.9% of the vote, while Bush could only manage 41.8%, a clear indication that her support had significantly dwindled. The race was called by Decision Desk HQ after polls closed, and the results were quick to ignite a firestorm of reactions, particularly from Republican figures who wasted no time mocking Bush’s loss.Wesley Bell, a former prosecutor, emerged as a formidable challenger for Bush. His leadership in St. Louis County has made him a respected figure in local politics, and his win over Bush in the primary reflects a growing desire for change within Missouri’s Democratic Party.Bell’s focus on criminal justice reform and his track record as a prosecutor who had worked to reduce mass incarceration struck a chord with voters, especially in light of Bush’s increasingly controversial stances.Bell’s victory marks a critical shift in the political dynamic of Missouri’s 1st Congressional District, which covers St. Louis City and parts of St. Louis County. As the city grapples with rising crime and calls for police reform, Bell’s message of pragmatic change appears to have resonated more deeply with voters than Bush’s more radical approach to governance.In the aftermath of Bush’s defeat, Republicans took to social media to mock and ridicule her political loss. Pro-Trump comedian Terrance K. Williams shared his glee over the result, posting on X (formerly Twitter): “A ‘BLACK JOB’ IS SOMETHING CORI BUSH DOES NOT HAVE. OH HAPPY DAY! OH HAPPY DAY. She is the Second Squad member to lose her seat! I can’t wait until they are all gone. They are all full of hate and stupidity. I’m laughing so hard. Who’s laughing with me?”Florida GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz, known for his sharp criticism of Bush during their time together on the House Judiciary Committee, also took a jab at her defeat. Gaetz tweeted, “I will miss Cori Bush missing every committee meeting.”His sarcastic comment highlighted the growing frustration among Republicans over Bush’s absence from important committee work, further intensifying the mockery of her loss.Ryan Fournier, a co-founder of the Students for Trump group, added his own taunt, posting, “The Squad’s Cori Bush has LOST her primary. Join me in saying GOOD RIDDANCE! Hamas might be hiring, Cori!”This comment referenced Bush’s controversial stances on the Israel-Hamas conflict, which have earned her the ire of both her political opponents and many within her own party.Actor Michael Rapaport, a vocal supporter of Israel, also weighed in on Bush’s defeat, taking to social media to express his satisfaction. Rapaport posted, “Tonight at the rally they said let’s bring back ‘JOY’ to politics and boom CORI BUSH is done with Politics…. I feel JOY all of a sudden.”His sarcastic tone underscored the widespread sentiment among Bush’s critics, who saw her defeat as a victory for traditional political norms.Cori Bush’s political career has been marked by bold stances on a range of issues, from police reform to her support of progressive causes like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal.However, her tenure in Congress has been fraught with controversy. Since her election in 2020, Bush has been a staunch ally of other members of the Squad, including Reps. Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Rashida Tlaib. Together, they have pushed for sweeping left-wing reforms, challenging the establishment wing of the Democratic Party.However, Bush’s association with the Squad and her vocal support of controversial movements, such as her alignment with pro-Hamas demonstrators after the October 7th attack on Israel, have drawn significant backlash.Her remarks and actions following the attack, which was an unprecedented and unprovoked assault on Israel by terrorists affiliated with Hamas, alienated many in her own party, as well as voters who viewed her position as extreme.Bush’s alignment with pro-Hamas demonstrators, who threatened Jewish students on college campuses and blamed Israel for the ensuing conflict, became a flashpoint in her campaign.Critics argued that her rhetoric was not only inflammatory but also deeply divisive, further alienating voters who were already grappling with concerns over rising crime and public safety.In addition to her controversial stance on international issues, Bush has also faced scrutiny over her personal finances. Reports surfaced alleging that she had funneled thousands of dollars to her husband in exchange for “security” services, despite her public calls for defunding the police and reducing law enforcement presence in her district.These revelations only served to further tarnish her image, as many saw them as hypocritical given her calls for greater public accountability and transparency.Cori Bush’s defeat comes on the heels of another high-profile loss for the Squad, that of Rep. Jamaal Bowman of New York. Like Bush, Bowman faced a significant challenge in his primary, losing by a large margin despite his strong ties to the far-left wing of the Democratic Party.Bowman’s loss was partly attributed to his vocal support for pro-Hamas demonstrators, which alienated many Democratic voters who were uncomfortable with his extreme position on the Israel-Palestine conflict.Both Bush and Bowman have claimed that their losses were not due to their extreme political views but rather to the influence of pro-Israel organizations like AIPAC, which they allege poured significant funding into their challengers’ campaigns.This claim has been met with skepticism, as many see their losses as more of a reflection of their unpopular stances on key issues, such as national security, crime, and law enforcement.The defeat of Bush and Bowman signals a potential shift within the Democratic Party, particularly as it grapples with the growing divide between its far-left wing and more centrist factions.As the party struggles to define its identity in an increasingly polarized political climate, the losses of high-profile Squad members may serve as a wake-up call for the party’s leadership.While the Squad has garnered significant attention for its progressive agenda, its controversial positions on issues like policing, foreign policy, and economic reform have created tensions within the broader Democratic coalition.As Democrats look ahead to the 2024 elections, they will need to balance their desire for bold, transformative change with the need to appeal to a broader electorate.Bush’s defeat, in particular, highlights the challenges faced by progressive candidates who have adopted radical stances on issues that many voters see as out of touch with the mainstream.As more centrist candidates rise to prominence, it remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party can bridge the gap between its ideological extremes and build a coalition capable of winning national elections.Cori Bush’s loss in the primary is a significant moment in the ongoing battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. As one of the most vocal and controversial members of the Squad, her defeat will likely have reverberations throughout the political landscape, not just in Missouri but across the nation.For the Republicans, it represents a major victory, one that they will no doubt continue to capitalize on as they work to expand their influence in upcoming elections.For Bush, the loss marks the end of what seemed to be a promising political career. Whether or not she can bounce back from this setback remains to be seen. But her defeat, alongside Bowman’s, sends a powerful message to the Democratic Party: the far-left wing of the party may not always be as politically invincible as some might think.