The United States Supreme Court cleared the way on Monday for the administration of President Donald Trump to resume the sport of migrants to countries other than their own without offering them the opportunity to show the damage they could face, giving him another victory in his aggressive search for mass deportations.
In an action that caused a strong dissent of its three liberal judges, the Court granted the request of the administration to raise a court order that requires migrants to establish for deportation to the so -called “third countries” to obtain a “significant opportunity” to tell the US officials that run the risk of torturing in their new destination, while developing a legal challenge.
The American district judge based in Boston, Brian Murphy, had issued the order on April 18.
The brief order of the Supreme Court was not signed and did not offer reasoning, as is common when deciding emergency applications. The court has a conservative majority of 6-3.
Judge Sonia Sotomayor, united by the other two liberal judges, described the decision as a “serious abuse” of the power of the court.
“Apparently, the Court considers that the idea that thousands will suffer violence in the remote premises tasty than the remote possibility of a district court exceeding its corrective powers when it ordered the Government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs have constitutionally and statutory right,” Sotomayor wrote.
Sotomayor described the action of the court “as incomprehensible as inexcusable.”
Murphy discovered that the administration policy of “executing third parties without providing notice and a significant opportunity to present claims based on fear” probably violates due process protections of the United States constitution.
Due process generally requires that the government provide notice and an opportunity for an audience before taking certain adverse actions.
After the National Security Department moved in February to intensify rapid deportations to third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a collective claim on behalf of a group of migrants who seek to avoid their transfer to these places without prior notice and obtain the opportunity to assert the damage they could face.
On May 21, Murphy found that the Trump administration violated its order that required additional steps before trying to send a group of migrants to South politically unstable South, that the United States Department of State has urged Americans to avoid “due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.”
The judge's intervention led the United States government to keep migrants in a military base in Djibouti.
After the decision of the United States Supreme Court, Murphy in a court order made it clear that his decision preventing the rapid deportation of eight men to South Sudan “remains in full vigor and effect.”
Trina Realmuto, Executive Director of the National Alliance of Immigration Litigation, which helps represent the plaintiffs, described the ramifications of the “horrible court,” eliminating “critical protections due to process that have been protecting our members of the kind of torture and death.”
The Administration told the Supreme Court that its third country policy has already fulfilled due process and is essential to eliminate migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often not willing to recover them. He said that all migrants destined for South Sudan had committed “atrocious crimes” in the United States, including murders, caused fires and armed robberies.
“The suspension of the Supreme Court of the court order of a leftist district judge reaffirms the president's authority to eliminate illegal criminal foreigners from our country and make the United States safe again,” said White House spokesman, Abigail Jackson, after Monday's decision.
“Shoot deportation airplanes,” said the assistant secretary of the Department of National Security, Tricia McLaughlin.
An avalanche of cases
The dispute is one of the many legal challenges so that Trump's policies have reached the highest judicial body in the nation since he returned to office in January.
The Supreme Court in May allowed Trump to end humanitarian programs for hundreds of thousands of migrants to live and work temporarily in the United States.
However, the judges criticized the treatment of the administration of some migrants to which they triumphed for the elimination under the Alien Enemies Law, a law of 1798 that has historically been used only in times of war, as inappropriate under the constitutional protections of due process.
Sotomayor said that by sending migrants to South Sudan, and in another case four to the US Naval Base. UU. In the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the Savior, the administration “openly reduced two judicial orders” emitted by Murphy.
Sotomayor also pointed out the separate litigation of the alien enemies law in which the questions about compliance with the administration with an order issued by a judge in that case were raised.
“This is not the first time that the court closes its eyes to non -compliance, or, I'm afraid, it will be the last,” Sotomayor wrote. “However, every time this court rewards the breach of discretionary reparation, further erodes respect for the courts and the rule of law.”
The Administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene after the United States Circuit Court of Circuit based in Boston on May 16 declined to stop Murphy's decision.
Reuters also reported that US officials had been considering sending migrants to Libya, another politically unstable country, despite the previous sentence of the United States for the hard treatment of Libya to the detainees.
