In a contentious decision on Thursday, the US Supreme Court upheld the federal government's authority to deport eight migrants back to South Sudan, despite ongoing severe conflicts and a "Do Not Travel" advisory issued by the US State Department for the region. The advisory highlights the perilous conditions in South Sudan, marked by widespread armed conflict and high instances of violent crime.

The legal journey that led to this conclusion began when District Court Judge Brian Murphy, in April, issued a preliminary injunction preventing the deportation of any migrant to countries not listed in their original removal orders and emphasized the need for adherence to the Convention Against Torture protocols before deportation. This was partially overturned when the Supreme Court issued a stay on this injunction in late June, pending an appeal.

Judge Murphy responded by asserting that his subsequent May order, which sought remedies for six immigrants denied potential relief, still stood. However, the Supreme Court's latest ruling clarifies that their stay of the April injunction fully applies, rendering any conflicting lower court orders unenforceable.

In a powerful dissent, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson argued against the decision, citing violations of international and domestic laws that protect individuals from being deported to countries where they face likely torture or death. They criticized the government’s approach to deportations, which they viewed as lacking sufficient notice or opportunity for the migrants to express their fears of torture in their homeland—a right safeguarded under the Fifth Amendment.

Under the legal framework of 8 USC § 1231, the US can deport individuals to a third party country if returning them to their homeland or their point of departure to the US is not feasible. However, this statute must be reconciled with international agreements like the Convention Against Torture, which, while it protects against torture, does not explicitly cover third-party deportations.

The decision underscores a significant judicial backing for governmental authority in deportation matters, even amidst judicial and public concern for human rights and safety in conflict zones. This ruling not only affects the eight individuals directly involved but also potentially sets a precedent for similar future cases where migrants are at risk of harm upon deportation.