Another Fire Rages: Punk Administration Accused of Defying Court, Deporting Migrants to War-Torn South Sudan

In a recent, powerful op-ed, The Atlantic likened the Punk administration’s relentless assault on the rule of law to a kind of arson: a deliberate setting of so many blazes that the nation’s “fire department”—its courts and constitutional safeguards—is struggling to keep pace. This week, another such fire has erupted, with credible and alarming allegations that the administration is deporting vulnerable migrants from Asian countries not to their homelands, but to the war-torn, famine-threatened nation of South Sudan, in apparent direct defiance of existing federal court orders and fundamental due process. As U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy swiftly intervened on Tuesday with an emergency order demanding accountability, one braces for the inevitable outcome: a likely judicial finding that the administration has once again broken the law, predictably followed by a presidential tantrum that does little to soothe the “burning” sensation of being held in check.

The latest conflagration flared into public view on Tuesday, May 20th, through court filings by the National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA) and subsequent reports from outlets like Newsweek and The Guardian. Attorneys allege that approximately a dozen migrants, primarily from Myanmar and Vietnam, and held at a Texas detention facility, were flown to South Sudan early Tuesday morning. This action, they assert, directly violates prior orders from Judge Murphy explicitly prohibiting such third-country deportations without affording individuals a “meaningful opportunity” to argue that they could face torture, persecution, or other severe harm if sent to that specific nation.

The details are harrowing. One Myanmarese national, identified only as “N.M.” and having “limited English proficiency,” was reportedly served a removal notice for South Sudan written solely in English—itself a violation of a previous court order regarding proper notification. He refused to sign. His lawyers learned he was on a flight Tuesday morning. The spouse of a Vietnamese man from the same facility emailed his lawyer with similar news: he and about ten others had been deported.

The choice of South Sudan as a destination is, in itself, an act of breathtaking cynicism. The world’s youngest nation remains gripped by devastating internal conflict, widespread human rights abuses, including killings and torture, and, as UN officials warned just this past week, is on the brink of a renewed famine that could see 14,000 babies die within days if aid is not massively increased. The U.S. State Department itself maintains a “Level 4: Do Not Travel” advisory for South Sudan, its highest warning level, citing “crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.” Ironically, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem only recently granted a limited, short-term extension of Temporary Protected Status for actual South Sudanese nationals in the U.S., implicitly acknowledging the ongoing dangers there.

In a hastily arranged virtual hearing on Tuesday, Judge Murphy, a Biden appointee, reportedly did not mince words. According to The Guardian, he warned the Department of Justice lawyer that these potential violations of his orders could constitute “criminal contempt” and that he was “weighing ordering a plane carrying the migrants… to turn around.” His subsequent written order, issued Tuesday afternoon, mandated that DHS and other defendants “maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful.” He further demanded that all such individuals be treated “humanely” and ordered DHS to appear at a Wednesday hearing prepared to identify every affected individual by name and detail precisely what notice and opportunity to raise fear-based claims each received. The order specifically singled out “N.M.,” requiring full details of his removal regardless of his class membership status.

Lawyers for the migrants are, quite rightly, invoking the recent Supreme Court intervention in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García—the Maryland man mistakenly deported to El Salvador whom the high court ordered the administration to facilitate returning—as a precedent for why these individuals allegedly sent to South Sudan must also be brought back if their deportations are found unlawful.

This alleged defiance of court orders and due process is not an anomaly for this administration; it is increasingly the norm, another blaze in the “arsonist’s” assault on the rule of law described by The Atlantic. It fits a disturbing pattern:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s candid admission in April that the U.S. is actively seeking third countries, even “the further away the better,” to take deportees deemed “despicable human beings” as a “favor to us.”

The administration’s persistent attempts to use the archaic Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans to a notorious prison in El Salvador, an effort partially (and repeatedly) checked by the courts, including the Supreme Court, on due process grounds.

The ongoing saga of Kilmar Ábrego García, still reportedly languishing in El Salvador despite a Supreme Court directive regarding his return.

It is within this context of escalating executive overreach and apparent contempt for judicial review that the events surrounding the alleged South Sudan deportations must be viewed. As Judge Murphy prepares for Wednesday’s show cause hearing, the anticipation is not just about the fate of a dozen vulnerable migrants, but about another chapter in the ongoing struggle to hold an administration accountable to the law.

The pattern of response from President Punk and his allies to such judicial rebukes is, by now, depressingly familiar. We can almost schedule the ensuing “tantrum”: expect accusations that the judge is an activist, that he’s endangering national security, that this is another “illegal injunction” designed to thwart the President’s will. Expect declarations that the President has the inherent authority to do whatever he deems necessary. What we are unlikely to see is any contrition or acknowledgment of wrongdoing.

This latest alleged outrage – shipping asylum seekers from Asia to a war-torn African nation in defiance of court orders – is more than just another legal skirmish. It is a profound moral failing and a stark illustration of the dangers that The Atlantic warned about. While dedicated judges like Brian Murphy act as crucial “firefighters,” the question remains whether the American system of checks and balances can withstand an executive branch seemingly determined to ignite new constitutional crises on a weekly basis. The rule of law is not self-executing; it requires constant defense. And when the “arsonist” resides in the White House, the fire department needs all the support it can get.