The US Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to resume the deportation of some migrants to third countries without any notice after a lower court had temporarily blocked the practice, requiring the government to give migrants a “meaningful opportunity” to present potential risks of deportation to a third country such as South Sudan, El Salvador, Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Vietnam instead of their homeland. The 6–3 ruling represents a short-term win during the ongoing immigration policy debate.
President Trump has been vocal about the immigration policy, stating it is the key to national security.
In the case of D.V.D. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the government tried to deport some ICE detainees to countries they didn’t come from—something usually barred by federal law. Boston-based US District Judge Brian Murphy ruled the move violated a prior order he issued in April, which required that migrants be granted the opportunity to raise concerns about facing torture or death if removed to such countries, even in case their appeals had already been denied.
As reported by BBC, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson dubbed the majority’s unsigned decision on Monday a “gross abuse.”
“Apparently, the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung 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,” Sotomayor wrote.
“That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable.”
The Department of Homeland Security, however, saw the ruling as a victory, with the agency’s spokeswoman, Tricia McLaughlin, saying, “Fire up the deportation planes.”
Trump’s administration claims the eight migrants committed “heinous crimes” such as murder, arson, and robbery. The migrants’ lawyers, however, stated that some of them had no criminal convictions.
According to many, at the heart of this case is a conflict between safety and rights. It’s outcome may influence future immigration practices and policies.
Please SHARE this article with your family and friends on Facebook.
Bored Daddy
Love and Peace
