A federal judge has warned that officials in the Trump administration could face criminal contempt charges after defying a court order that halted the removal of Asian immigrants to South Sudan. District Judge Brian Murphy criticized the Department of Homeland Security and Justice Department officials for proceeding with the deportations despite his clear directive.
On Tuesday, two asylum seekers from Myanmar and Vietnam were flown to South Sudan, a country the State Department describes as plagued by violence, slavery, and extrajudicial killings. They remain in custody under Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Djibouti, where their charter flight made a stop.
Murphy’s earlier order prohibited so-called “third-country removals”—the transfer of migrants to countries other than their homelands—without giving them an opportunity to contest their removal. He has already reprimanded officials for a similar attempt to send Asian nationals to Libya.
At a hearing, Judge Murphy made clear that any official who knew of his injunction could be held in contempt, whether at the lowest levels of the chain of command or as high as the president. He raised questions about whether statements made by government lawyers about a deported Guatemalan asylum seeker were truthful, suggesting the possibility of lying under oath.
That case involves a gay Guatemalan immigrant who alleged he was sent to Mexico despite expressing fears of persecution and sexual violence there. Initially, immigration officials claimed he had agreed to the removal, but later acknowledged that this assertion was based on faulty information. An ICE affidavit admitted no officer had actually consulted him about his fear.
Judge Murphy pressed Department of Justice attorneys on how the error occurred and asked how a serious misunderstanding could have led to such a decision. “How was this mistake made?” he demanded during the hearing.
The White House, through a press release, criticized Murphy, calling him a “far-left activist judge” attempting to dictate U.S. foreign policy and favor criminal immigrants. Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin defended the removals, arguing that no country wanted the individuals because of their serious convictions, and that South Sudan had agreed to take custody.
Officials from the Justice Department described the deportations as a misunderstanding of the court order. However, Judge Murphy was firm in his view that the government’s actions were clearly at odds with his instructions. “The department’s actions in this case are unquestionably violative of this court’s order,” he said.
Murphy also emphasized the national importance of following court orders, warning that contempt proceedings could involve sworn testimony from DHS officials. He underscored the gravity of lying to a court when issues of national security and human rights are at risk, calling it “a really big deal.”
With further hearings likely, Judge Murphy indicated he will investigate who in the chain of command knew about his injunction and whether they willfully chose to ignore it. The outcome could shape how the administration handles sensitive removals in the future and underscore the judiciary’s role in enforcing procedural safeguards for immigrants.
