The Supreme Court issued a firm rebuke to a federal district judge Thursday, rejecting what it described as an attempt to defy a recent high court order allowing the Trump administration to resume deportations of illegal immigrants to third countries.
In a 7-2 decision, the Court found that District Judge Brian Murphy, appointed by former President Joe Biden, overstepped his judicial authority.
He claimed his own order blocking the deportation of eight illegal immigrants to South Sudan still stood, despite the Supreme Court’s prior ruling allowing third-country removals.
“Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full,” the majority wrote. “The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.”
The case centers on the Trump administration’s effort to expedite removals of individuals who entered the U.S. illegally by sending them to third countries not listed in their original deportation orders.
After the Supreme Court issued its June 23 ruling lifting a lower court’s injunction, the administration proceeded with enforcement actions.
Just hours later, however, Judge Murphy insisted that an earlier ruling he issued still prevented the deportation of eight illegal immigrants to South Sudan.
In response, the administration filed an emergency motion on June 24 urging the high court to step in again.
The filing sharply criticized Murphy’s actions, accusing the judge of blatant defiance that interfered with foreign policy and hindered lawful enforcement by the executive branch.
“This lawless act of defiance… disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the Executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals,” the motion stated.
Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented from the June 23 ruling, concurred with the majority on Thursday’s decision.
Although she disagreed with the original outcome, Kagan wrote that lower courts cannot enforce injunctions the Supreme Court has stayed.
She underscored that once the high court rules, its decisions are binding—even for those who disagree with them, The Daily Caller reports.
Only Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from Thursday’s ruling.
In a sharply worded opinion, Sotomayor argued that the district court acted out of urgency to protect lives.
She stated that the government “may not deport noncitizens to a country where they are likely to be tortured or killed,” criticizing the majority for relying on what she described as limited precedent.
“Given that the majority can muster no more than a sentence of 80-year-old dictum in support of today’s holding, the District Court can hardly be faulted for reaching a contrary conclusion,” she wrote.
She also noted the limited time Murphy had to issue his ruling.
The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the authority of the executive branch in carrying out immigration enforcement and sends a clear message to lower courts: once the high court issues a stay, its order must be followed, regardless of disagreement.
The ruling strengthens the Trump administration’s position and clears the path for continued third-country deportations, a key element of its border enforcement strategy.
It also marks a rare and public correction of what the Court viewed as an improper judicial challenge by a sitting district judge.
