Secretary of State Marco Rubio sounded the alarm Friday after a federal judge’s ruling temporarily blocked the deportation of several foreign nationals—including individuals bound for South Sudan—warning the decision poses “significant and irreparable harm to U.S. foreign policy.”
The controversy stems from a flight carrying deportees that departed Texas earlier this week, including migrants from South Sudan, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, and Mexico. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts ruled the deportations violated his April injunction, which requires that deportees be given time to contest removal to third-party nations.
In response, the Trump administration filed two urgent court motions Friday evening, defending the president’s constitutional authority under Article II and requesting the judge to reconsider what officials called “highly burdensome requirements.”
“This Department of Justice believes that this situation urgently requires judicial intervention to restore President Trump’s full Article II authority to conduct foreign policy,” a DOJ official told Fox News Digital.
Rubio emphasized in court filings that the ruling has already undermined delicate diplomatic progress with several key nations—most notably Libya, South Sudan, and Djibouti. According to Rubio, the judge’s order has disrupted quiet negotiations, inflamed internal tensions abroad, and hindered efforts to reestablish cooperation with South Sudan’s transitional government.
Before the court intervened, South Sudan had refused to accept a deportee but had since started engaging with the U.S. more constructively, Rubio said. Now, he warns that progress is being reversed, and efforts to rebuild trust with Juba are at risk of unraveling.
The issue has further complicated matters in Djibouti, a strategic partner home to the only permanent U.S. military base on the African continent. The deportees are currently being held at a U.S. naval facility there—a move the administration argues is unsustainable and dangerous.
In its second filing, the government asked the court to grant a stay or reverse its order altogether, stating that the administration is “currently detaining dangerous criminals in a sensitive location without clear knowledge of when, how, or where this Court will tolerate their release.”
Administration lawyers argue that the deportees were lawfully removed following due process. “These criminal aliens needed only to state a fear of removal to South Sudan to qualify for further protection under the Court’s April injunction,” the filing stated. “They did not do so. DHS therefore proceeded to remove individuals who have committed some of the most serious violations of our laws.”
The federal court’s ruling Tuesday night came after attorneys for deportees from Myanmar and Vietnam accused the administration of violating legal safeguards against third-country removals. Judge Murphy ordered that individuals currently in transit must be kept under U.S. custody and control in case the court deems the deportations unlawful.
The decision has drawn fierce pushback from the administration and top officials, who argue it not only oversteps judicial authority but also puts the president’s constitutional powers—and national security—at risk.
In a move that preceded this latest legal battle, Rubio announced in April that the U.S. would revoke visas held by South Sudanese citizens and suspend future issuances, citing the country’s failure to promptly accept its repatriated nationals.
The United States maintains third-party deportation agreements with a handful of countries. El Salvador, for instance, has accepted hundreds of Venezuelan deportees under the Trump administration. But agreements with less stable nations, like South Sudan, remain precarious and heavily dependent on behind-the-scenes diplomacy—diplomacy that Rubio says is now being compromised by federal judicial interference.