Judge Comments On Trump Admin In Immigration Order
In a forceful rebuke with far-reaching implications for immigration policy and executive authority, U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy slammed the Trump administration over its handling of deportation proceedings involving eight men sent to or slated for removal to South Sudan and other high-risk nations. The case has exposed a stark clash between hard-line immigration enforcement and constitutional due process—a battle that, for now, has swung sharply in favor of judicial oversight.
“It is hard to take seriously the idea that Defendants intended these individuals to have any real opportunity to make a valid claim,” Judge Murphy wrote in a searing 17-page opinion. His language pulled no punches, painting a picture of a process so rushed, so opaque, and so flawed that it effectively stripped migrants of their fundamental rights under U.S. law.
Among the administration’s missteps, Murphy pointed to less than 24 hours’ notice given to some deportees—some with as little as 16 hours—an outright violation of federal guidelines mandating at least 15 days and clear notification in a language the individual understands. Instead, several migrants were sent to a U.S. military base in Djibouti, a continent away from the courts assigned to their cases, without adequate warning, access to legal counsel, or even the chance to articulate fear of persecution.
The risk was not hypothetical. The deportees faced possible transfer to South Sudan, a country the U.S. State Department has labeled dangerous due to war, lawlessness, and rampant violence. In Murphy’s own words: “Foreign nationals have been the victims of rape, sexual assault, armed robberies, and other violent crimes.” He found the risk of “irreparable harm” not only credible, but immediate.
One of the eight deportees was a South Sudanese national. Another faced repatriation to Myanmar. Six others remain in legal limbo, with no destination clearly defined, amplifying concerns over indefinite detention or even abandonment in unstable third countries.
To be clear, all eight individuals had criminal convictions—most for violent offenses. The Trump administration has used these records as justification for expedited removals under its broader strategy to deport millions of undocumented migrants. Yet, as Judge Murphy emphasized, “That does not change due process.”
The court's central finding was that even individuals with serious criminal histories are entitled to procedural fairness, including adequate time and resources to contest their deportation—particularly when removal may expose them to torture or political persecution.
This case is not just about eight deportees. It’s about the balance of power. Judge Murphy’s ruling challenges the legality and morality of a model in which executive agencies can bypass the judiciary in the name of immigration control. By conducting proceedings in far-flung locations and denying meaningful recourse, the administration appeared, in Murphy’s view, to be testing the limits of constitutional protections.
And in doing so, they may have crossed a line.
As expected, President Donald Trump did not take the criticism lightly. On Truth Social, he railed against the judiciary: “The Judges are absolutely out of control... And this must change, IMMEDIATELY!” His statement continues a familiar pattern—portraying judicial oversight as obstruction and dismissing legal norms as outdated or irrelevant in the face of national security concerns.
But even with public opinion sharply divided, the law remains clear. The judiciary has reaffirmed that due process is not optional. It is not a privilege extended only to the innocent or politically convenient. It is a constitutional requirement.