On Monday, we brought you an update to what I think I'll dub "The South Sudan Saga," involving the Trump administration's efforts to remove eight criminal illegal aliens (as in, convicted of other serious crimes, in addition to having been in the U.S. illegally) to a third country (i.e., South Sudan). To recap, as we noted, all eight are subject to removal orders. The catch with them is that they're apparently such unsavory characters that their own native countries don't want them back. That's where South Sudan comes in.
Massachusetts District Court Judge Brian Murphy, on April 18, issued a preliminary injunction barring the aliens' removal without a "meaningful opportunity" to apply for what's known as a "Convention Against Torture" (CAT) exemption. Let's say the administration and Judge Murphy had different ideas of what that "meaningful opportunity" looked like, and the administration was in the process of transferring the individuals to South Sudan when Judge Murphy, in May, entered an order "clarifying" his prior injunction, finding that the administration had violated it, and ordering as a remedy a halt to the removal process until certain procedural hoops were jumped through. This essentially forced the flight transporting the aliens to divert to Djibouti, and there, the aliens and DHS personnel have been more or less stuck since May 21.
The administration appealed Murphy's ruling to the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals (before which the appeal remains pending) and moved to stay the lower court injunction pending appeal. The 1st Circuit said no, so the administration filed an application for stay with the Supreme Court. Monday, the Supreme Court granted that application and stayed Murphy's April 18 preliminary injunction.
Given that Murphy's May 21 orders were derivative of the April 18 injunction, it was reasonable to infer that they were likewise stayed by the Supreme Court's order, though Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in her dissent, contended that those later orders were not properly before the court. The petitioners immediately ran back to Judge Murphy with an "emergency motion to enforce judgment" and an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, insisting that even though the original injunction was stayed, the subsequent orders compelling the administration's compliance with it were not, and therefore, our friends in Djibouti must remain in Djibouti unless/until Murphy's proscribed "meaningful opportunity" hoops have been jumped through.
In one of the more astounding displays of judicial hubris I've ever seen, on Monday evening, Judge Murphy agreed with the petitioners, asserting in a brief minute order that the May 21 order on remedy remains in effect and citing back to Sotomayor's dissent. (It should be noted that the majority opinion simply granted the application for stay without providing a written opinion or explicitly referencing Murphy's subsequent orders.) In other words, even though his initial injunction is stayed pending appeal, his subsequent order(s) enforcing it must be complied with, according to Murphy.
So now...the administration has filed a motion to clarify with the Supreme Court, asking the court to spell out that the stay necessarily includes the later orders from Murphy attempting to enforce the stayed injunction. The petitioners have responded to that motion, of course, opposing the administration's stance.
As of this writing, the Supreme Court has yet to weigh in on the motion to clarify, though one suspects they will shortly. Either Judge Murphy's going to be mightily embarrassed, or the Supreme Court is going to completely undermine itself by defanging its Monday order. We'll keep you posted.
Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.
Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.