Supreme Court Clears Way for Trump to Deport Migrants Held in Djibouti to South Sudan

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of President Trump’s administration, allowing the deportation of eight migrants held at an American base in Djibouti to South Sudan, a country still struggling with violence and instability.

This decision clears the final legal barrier for the deportations, following a year of heated court battles and global attention.

The eight individuals—some with past criminal records—have been held for months by U.S. authorities overseas. But what makes this case so controversial is that none of them are from South Sudan, and sending them there could put their lives at serious risk.

Human rights groups argue that deporting people to a war-torn country like South Sudan violates international law and basic protections. They warn that these individuals may face torture, persecution, or even death once removed.

What the Supreme Court Decided

On June 23, a federal judge temporarily stopped the deportations, saying the migrants deserved a chance to argue that they could face torture. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying that earlier rulings already cleared the way.

With this new decision, the migrants could be sent to South Sudan within days. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) says flights are being arranged and that all eight could be transferred by the end of the week.

Reactions Are Divided

• Supporters of the ruling, including Trump officials, say it’s a necessary move for national security and immigration enforcement.
• Critics, including Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented strongly. They argued the decision strips away due-process protections and sets a worrying precedent for how the government can deport people to countries they have no connection to.

What Comes Next?

Legal advocates are already preparing new challenges. While the Supreme Court’s ruling allows this specific deportation to move forward, broader questions remain about the ethics and legality of third-country removals—especially when the destination is unstable.

As for the migrants themselves, human rights organizations are calling on international bodies to monitor what happens after they land in South Sudan.

This ruling is a powerful example of how fast immigration policies can shift—and how the balance between national security and human rights is once again under the spotlight.