DJIBOUTI — A U.S. federal judge has temporarily blocked the deportation of eight migrants after they were flown to Djibouti en route to South Sudan without being granted proper legal notice or access to legal representation, in what rights groups call a blatant violation of domestic and international law.
The migrants—who originate from Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Cuba, Mexico, and South Sudan—were removed from U.S. detention and placed aboard a military-chartered flight under a Trump administration policy that aimed to expedite removals by circumventing standard immigration court procedures.
According to a ruling published Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla, the removal violated constitutional due process guarantees and may have breached the U.N. Convention Against Torture.
“The government cannot use extraterritorial transportation to deny individuals the protections guaranteed under U.S. law,” Judge Failla wrote in her order, which halted the removal and instructed federal authorities to detain the migrants in Djibouti until further judicial review.
The deportation flight landed at Camp Lemonnier, a U.S. naval expeditionary base in Djibouti, where the migrants remain in temporary military custody. Pentagon officials confirmed the individuals are “under protection and not under military authority,” pending further legal determinations.
A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in a brief statement that “the agency is reviewing the court’s decision” and “continues to enforce removal orders consistent with U.S. law.” The DHS declined to comment on whether the migrants were provided legal counsel prior to the flight.
Human rights advocates have condemned the episode, calling it part of a broader strategy by the Trump administration to externalize immigration enforcement.
“This is a deeply troubling abuse of executive power,” said Eleanor Acer, director of refugee protection at Human Rights First. “What we’re seeing is an effort to deport vulnerable individuals out of view, outside the bounds of accountability.”
Several of the migrants are believed to have sought asylum or humanitarian relief in the U.S., but were transferred before their petitions could be heard. Attorneys from the ACLU and the National Immigrant Justice Center filed emergency petitions on their behalf in federal court, triggering the injunction.
“The fact that these individuals were placed on a flight with no notice to counsel or family is outrageous,” said immigration attorney Sarah B. Lopez, who is representing two of the detainees. “Had the court not intervened, we could be looking at irreparable harm—or worse.”
South Sudan, one of the intended destinations, is not considered a safe third country under U.S. law. The U.S. State Department currently designates South Sudan as “Level 4: Do Not Travel” due to armed conflict, crime, and kidnapping risks.
Critics say sending individuals to such a destination could amount to refoulement—forced return to danger.
Legal experts say the case could have long-term implications for U.S. deportation policy.
“This ruling sends a message: offshore tactics do not shield the U.S. government from constitutional scrutiny,” said David Leopold, former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association. “Even outside our borders, the rule of law applies.”
Djibouti authorities have not issued public statements on the matter, though sources familiar with the situation told The New York Times that local officials were surprised by the flight and are closely monitoring developments.
For now, the eight individuals remain in a legal gray zone—neither returned home nor allowed to enter the United States—awaiting a hearing that could determine whether they will be granted relief or removed permanently.
