Trump administration silent on missing migrant flight’s whereabouts – Lawyers claim deportees were sent to South Sudan, but government calls details classified

Federal Judge Rules Action Violates Due Process

The Trump administration ignited a firestorm of controversy on Tuesday, May 20, 2025, by deporting eight migrants to South Sudan.

This move directly violated a federal court order. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy, a Biden appointee based in Boston, ruled the deportation breached an injunction he issued on April 28, 2025.

That order prohibited deporting immigrants to countries they are not from without allowing them time to challenge their removal.

The migrants included individuals from Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Myanmar, Vietnam, and one South Sudanese citizen, Dian Peter Domach.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stated all eight were convicted of serious violent felonies, including five for murder and two for sexual offenses.

Yet, sending them to South Sudan—a nation grappling with war, food shortages, and ethnic violence—has raised significant humanitarian and legal concerns.

Court Order Ignored

Judge Murphy’s April 2025 order was explicit. It barred deportations to third-party countries without giving immigrants a meaningful chance to object, especially if the destination posed safety risks.

The Trump administration disregarded this mandate. Lawyers for the immigrants received an email notification on Monday, May 19, 2025.

By Tuesday morning, the men were already on a plane. Attorneys argued the 12-hour notice was far too short for legal challenges.

In a tense hearing, Justice Department lawyer Elianis Perez refused to disclose the flight’s location or destination.

She claimed the information was classified. When Judge Murphy pressed for the legal basis of this classification, Perez admitted she had no answer.

This lack of transparency has fueled accusations of the administration sidestepping judicial oversight.

Judge’s Stern Warning

Judge Murphy did not mince words. “Based on what I have been told, this seems like it may be contempt,” he said.

He ordered the government to maintain custody of the migrants. He also warned that any official involved in the flight, including pilots, could face criminal penalties for violating his order.

The plane has reportedly landed in South Sudan, but the migrants remain in U.S. custody pending further court approval.

South Sudan’s Response

South Sudan’s government has distanced itself from the controversy.

Maj. Gen. James Monday Enoka, a spokesperson, stated on May 21, 2025, that no migrants had arrived in the country.

He added that if they did, they would be investigated and potentially redeported to their home countries.

Reports indicate the U.S. reached an agreement with South Sudan to temporarily accept the deportees before redirecting them to their nations of origin.

South Sudan’s instability is well-documented. A 2023 State Department report (Human Rights in South Sudan) highlights ongoing violence, food insecurity, and ethnic conflicts.

The U.S. advises against travel to the country due to these dangers, making the choice of South Sudan as a deportation destination particularly contentious.

Administration’s Defense

The Trump administration has stood firm. It cited a 2020 Supreme Court decision (Expedited Deportation Ruling) that upheld expedited deportation processes.

ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons and DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin held a press conference, displaying photos of the deportees.

They emphasized the severity of their crimes, including rape and murder, to justify the operation.

The administration also criticized Judge Murphy. They accused him of overstepping his authority and dictating foreign policy.

Parts of the operation were described as classified, with officials refusing to provide further details. This secrecy has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts and immigrant advocates.

Legal and Humanitarian Fallout

Immigrant rights groups have condemned the deportation. They argue that sending individuals to a war-torn country like South Sudan, especially those with no ties there, is inhumane.

At least one Vietnamese migrant had a removal order to return to Vietnam, yet was sent to South Sudan instead.

This discrepancy underscores broader concerns about the administration’s deportation practices.

The administration has a history of sending immigrants to countries they are not from, including Rwanda, El Salvador, Costa Rica, and Panama.

These actions have consistently faced legal challenges.

A recent Supreme Court ruling on the Alien Enemies Act found that 24 hours’ notice is insufficient for immigrants to challenge deportations, further complicating the administration’s position.

Broader Immigration Crackdown

This incident is part of the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration agenda. The administration has pledged to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

However, legal battles have slowed these efforts. Courts have frequently ruled against the administration, citing due process violations and humanitarian concerns.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has added fuel to the fire. He reportedly claimed he does not have to follow court orders, a stance that has alarmed legal scholars.

This defiance has raised questions about the balance of power between the executive branch and the judiciary.

Diplomatic Tensions

The deportation has strained U.S.-South Sudan relations. In April 2024, a similar dispute led to visa revocations and bans on South Sudanese nationals entering the U.S. (South Sudan Visa Restrictions).

Despite these tensions, the U.S. provided over $640 million in humanitarian aid to South Sudan in 2024, highlighting a complex relationship.

Some South Sudanese nationals in the U.S. benefit from Temporary Protected Status (TPS), extended to November 2024 due to unsafe conditions in South Sudan (TPS Extension).

This policy contrasts sharply with the decision to deport migrants to the same country deemed too dangerous for TPS recipients.

What’s Next?

The legal battle is far from over. Judge Murphy is considering contempt charges against administration officials.

The migrants’ current location remains unclear, though they are reportedly still in U.S. custody on a plane in South Sudan.

The administration’s refusal to comply with court orders could lead to further judicial action, including criminal sanctions.

This case highlights a broader clash between the Trump administration’s immigration policies and the judiciary’s role in upholding due process.

As legal and humanitarian concerns mount, the fate of the eight deportees hangs in the balance.

Trending News