(Juba) – The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to resume deporting certain migrants to countries they did not originate from, including South Sudan and Libya, under an emergency order issued on 23 June. The ruling which passed with a 6-3 vote reverses earlier lower court decisions that had blocked the controversial policy due to safety concerns.
The decision permits the rapid removal of migrants to so called “third countries” where they were neither born nor have citizenship, even if those countries face instability and severe human rights violations. In the case under review, only one of the eight deportees was South Sudanese; the others were from Cuba, Mexico, Laos, Myanmar, and Vietnam.
The U.S. government’s efforts to deport them to South Sudan were temporarily halted by a Massachusetts court in May, which cited an earlier April 2025 order requiring that migrants must be given time to challenge deportation to third countries if such relocation could endanger their lives. That court’s ruling was overruled by the Supreme Court, although the majority did not provide a detailed legal explanation.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, issued a strong dissent, warning that the ruling could expose thousands of individuals to violence in countries they have no connection to and calling the majority’s silence on humanitarian concerns “deeply troubling.”
The flight intended to deport the eight migrants was diverted to a U.S. military facility in Djibouti, where the individuals are reportedly being held in a makeshift container facility while awaiting a final decision. The fate of their potential deportation to South Sudan remains unclear.
The Trump administration has yet to clarify why it has selected South Sudan and Libya as third country destinations. While South Sudanese officials have stated that any deportees with criminal records would be repatriated to their countries of origin, documents filed in U.S. courts reveal that American officials have attempted to negotiate deals with both Libya and South Sudan to accept deported migrants in exchange for financial or political incentives.
Deporting migrants to countries where they are not citizens is rare but legally possible under U.S. immigration law when the individual’s home country refuses repatriation. However, critics say that such policies are inhumane, especially when targeting fragile or conflict-affected states like South Sudan and Libya.
South Sudan, which gained independence in 2011, continues to face political instability, widespread displacement, and humanitarian crises. According to the United Nations, more than 2.3 million South Sudanese have fled the country since 2013, and over 130,000 more have been internally displaced in 2025 alone. Nearly 57% of South Sudan’s 11 million people face food insecurity, and conflict between government and opposition groups has disrupted aid deliveries and escalated fears of renewed civil war.
In March 2025, Ugandan troops entered South Sudan in support of President Salva Kiir, intensifying tensions. The U.S. State Department responded by ordering non-essential U.S. personnel to leave the country, citing worsening security and human rights abuses, including arbitrary arrests and restrictions on freedom of expression.
Meanwhile, Libya remains politically fragmented and dangerous. Since the 2011 ousting of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya has lacked a unified government, with rival administrations and armed militias controlling different regions. Migrants attempting to pass through Libya face high risks of kidnapping, torture, and slavery, as documented by both United Nations investigations and human rights groups.
The Trump administration’s decision to include Libya in its deportation policy has raised similar concerns. In addition to security risks, the U.S. has no functioning embassy in Libya, and the country was recently included in an expanded travel ban list, making U.S. vetting and communication with authorities difficult. Secretary of State Marco Rubio suggested in a court filing that halting deportations could jeopardise a commercial energy deal involving a U.S. firm and Libya’s oil sector, underlining possible economic motivations behind the administration’s actions.
Rubio has also suggested adding more African countries, including South Sudan, to the travel ban list. A June 14 memo discussed expanding the number of third countries willing to accept migrants deported from the U.S., possibly in exchange for economic or political concessions.
Although South Sudanese authorities claim they have not coordinated directly with Washington on the matter, the country’s fragile state and limited capacity to host foreign deportees raise serious questions about the ethics and long term impact of such agreements.
Observers and rights advocates warn that deporting non-Sudanese nationals to South Sudan may not only place those individuals at risk but could also further strain South Sudan’s fragile infrastructure, especially in areas already overwhelmed by internal displacement and poverty.
For South Sudanese citizens, the inclusion of their country in this controversial U.S. immigration policy raises fresh concerns about international perceptions of South Sudan as a fallback destination for displaced people and deportees, even as many of its own citizens remain displaced both internally and abroad.
