A federal judge warned Tuesday that the Trump administration may have violated a court order by deporting migrants to South Sudan without providing them the opportunity to challenge their removal, setting the stage for a potential contempt of court finding.
In a tense and hastily convened hearing in Boston’s Federal District Court, Judge Brian E. Murphy ordered that any migrants on a deportation flight believed to be en route to South Sudan must remain in U.S. custody upon landing and not be handed over to foreign authorities until a follow-up hearing on Wednesday. He stopped short of ordering the plane to turn around but made clear his concern that the administration may have flouted his earlier injunction.
“I’m not going to instruct the plane to turn back,” Murphy said. “However, from what I’ve been informed, this situation appears that it could amount to contempt.”
At issue is whether the Trump administration violated a court order Murphy issued in April, which barred the government from deporting migrants to countries that are not their own—or where they could face harm—without giving them at least 15 days’ notice and the opportunity to raise legal objections.
According to lawyers with the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, at least two migrants—one from Myanmar and another from Vietnam—were informed they would be deported to South Sudan, a country wracked by violence and instability. The U.S. State Department advises against travel there due to armed conflict, crime, and the risk of arbitrary detention.
On Monday, the lawyers said, a client identified as “N.M.” from Myanmar was told he would be sent to South Sudan. By the time the legal teams reached out on Tuesday, he had already been deported.A similar situation was described for a Vietnamese man. In court filings, the lawyers included a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document that explicitly listed South Sudan as the intended removal destination for one of the men.
“The court documents indicate that the lawyers were informed by email from a detention officer that N.M. was deported to South Sudan this morning.”
Adding to the confusion, the government’s attorneys offered conflicting and vague explanations. Elianis N. Perez, a Justice Department lawyer, initially told the court that the Burmese man had actually been returned to Myanmar—not South Sudan—but declined to reveal the whereabouts of the Vietnamese man, saying the information was classified. Judge Murphy repeatedly pressed for clarity, asking where the plane was and what legal authority was being used to classify such information.
“I’m told that that information is classified, and I am told that the final destination is also classified,” Perez said.
When questioned further, Joseph N. Mazzara, acting general counsel for DHS, conceded that he was unsure whether the information was truly classified and admitted he did not know the current location of the plane.
Judge Murphy appeared skeptical of the administration’s position and signaled that the deportation of migrants without prior notice to South Sudan would likely violate his injunction.
The case is the latest in a series of confrontations between federal courts and the Trump administration over immigration enforcement. President Trump has aggressively pursued mass deportations as part of his broader immigration agenda, often prompting legal pushback. Judges have repeatedly ruled that the administration failed to provide migrants with sufficient due process before removing them, while Trump officials have openly challenged the judiciary’s authority—at times even calling for the impeachment of judges who ruled against them.
Murphy’s order to keep the migrants in U.S. custody until a hearing scheduled for Wednesday leaves the administration facing potential legal penalties, including contempt of court for those found to have knowingly violated the judge’s April order.
As the hearing adjourned, uncertainty remained about the fate of the migrants aboard the plane and whether the court would compel the government to retrieve individuals already deported. The outcome of Wednesday’s proceedings could carry significant implications for the limits of executive authority in immigration enforcement and the enforceability of judicial oversight in high-stakes deportation cases.
