SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
judiciary
After Trump Deportation Attempt, Migrants and ICE Agents Stranded in Shipping Container in Djibouti
"This is a situation the government both created and can remedy if it so chooses," said a lawyer for the migrants.
Jun 06, 2025
The Trump administration could have sent eight migrants with deportation orders and the immigration agents who were escorting them to a facility in the U.S. after a federal judge recently barred officials from deporting them to war-torn South Sudan, where they could face persecution or torture.
Instead the administration sent them to U.S. Naval Base Camp Lemonnier in the East African country of Djibouti, where a court filing on Thursday said they face illness, the threat of rocket fire from nearby Yemen, temperatures that soar past 100°F daily, and rancid smoke from nearby burn pits where human waste and trash are incinerated.
Tricia McLaughlin, a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, blamed U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy for "stranding" the 13 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and eight detainees at the naval base, where they have been housed since late May in a metal shipping container converted into a conference room with just six bunk beds.
The administration has frequently attacked judges for issuing rulings that have interfered with President Donald Trump's ability to carry out his anti-immigration agenda.
But Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, pointed to court transcripts that showed the Trump administration had requested the migrants and agents be sent to Camp Lemonnier.
"No one asked them to do and no court order forces them to do it," said Reichlin-Melnick Thursday.
In a court transcript, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Drew Ensign told Murphy that "bringing them back would be a much broader remedy than necessary" and suggested the detainees could have a "reasonable fear interview where they are" in Djibouti to determine if they had a credible fear of persecution or torture if they were deported. Murphy had instructed officials to arrange reasonable fear interviews when he ruled in May that they could not be sent to South Sudan.
"The judge did NOT require that anyone be 'stranded' anywhere," said Reichlin-Melnick. "In fact, it was the Trump administration that asked the judge for permission to hold the men in Djibouti! ICE could literally bring the men to any other U.S. base (or back to the U.S.) at any time!"
Murphy's ruling in May interrupted a deportation flight carrying the migrants—who have been convicted of crimes and are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan, and Vietnam—to South Sudan.
The judge said the flight violated his previous order from April 18, which prohibited the administration from sending immigrants to third countries without providing them a chance to request humanitarian protections. That ruling was underpinned by the Convention Against Torture, which bars governments from deporting people to countries where they could be face torture.
"The judge gave the government a choice as to how to remedy the government's violation of the court's order—either return them and comply with the order in the United States or comply with the order overseas," Trina Realmuto, a lawyer for the immigrants, toldThe Intercept. "The government opted to comply overseas after telling the court that they had the ability to do so. This is a situation the government both created and can remedy if it so chooses."
The court filing on Thursday by Mellissa Harper of the Office of Refugee Resettlement described how within 72 hours of arriving at the makeshift detention facility in Djibouti, the agents and migrants began to suffer from symptoms for bacterial respiratory infections, including "coughing, difficulty breathing, fever, and achy joints."
The filing explained that they are unable to get tested to determine what the illness is, and there is only a small supply of inhalers, Tylenol, eye drops, and nasal spray to treat the symptoms.
Based on what was described, Politico's Kyle Cheney asked: "Why is the Trump administration forcing them to stay there?"
"ICE's claims of difficulties here are ENTIRELY self-inflicted," said Reichlin-Melnick. "THEY asked the judge for permission to hold the men in Djibouti. The plaintiffs wanted the men brought back here. I have sympathy for the low-level officers stuck there, but it's ALL their bosses' fault."
The administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay Murphy's order requiring screenings for the migrants, claiming that ruling violated officials' authority to deport immigrants to third countries if their home countries won't take them back.
But in the case of at least one of the migrants, Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, the government of his home country of Mexico was not informed that he had been sent to Djibouti.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum suggested last month that Gutierrez could be repatriated if U.S. followed protocols to send him back to Mexico.
Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director for Detention Watch Network, toldNewsweek that the administration's insistence on detaining the migrants in a shipping container at Camp Lemonniere is "the latest move in Trump's shocking expansion of third country deportations."
"By expelling people out of sight and out of mind to remote prisons and war-torn, unstable countries," said Ghandehari, "the Trump regime is attempting to normalize the offshoring of immigration detention and third country deportations as a new and expanded model of incarceration and deportation."
Ghandehari added that "the use of shipping containers to detain people is heinous and enraging—and coupled with the extreme heat, disease, and threats of rocket attacks in Djibouti, can be deadly."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'This Is What Autocrats Do': Concern Grows Over Single Paragraph Buried Deep in GOP Bill
The provision would force those challenging Trump "to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."
May 31, 2025
A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.
Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.
"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."
On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.
A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:
One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond.
Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.
HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."
Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:
By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."
But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.
Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."
Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.
"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."
Keep ReadingShow Less
A Nation of Laws, Not Men: Why Lawyers Are Taking a Stand This Law Day
The oath we took upon joining the bar wasn't a one-time ceremony but a lifelong commitment. On May 1, we renew our promise to the Constitution en masse.
Apr 30, 2025
The American promise rests on a profound yet simple idea: We are governed by laws, not by the whims of individuals. This bedrock principle—that impartial rules apply equally to all—faces an unprecedented assault. On May 1, state and local bar associations, civil rights organizations, and lawyers nationwide will unite in an unprecedented mobilization to defend this cornerstone of American justice.
As lawyers, we take a solemn oath: to support the Constitution of the United States. "Support" in this context implies a more proactive stance than mere defense. This oath compels us to take affirmative steps to uphold the principle that law, not personal power, reigns supreme. Today, fulfilling this obligation has never been more critical.
This Thursday, lawyers in over 40 cities will stand shoulder to shoulder, collectively raising their right hands to publicly recommit to their sacred oath for the National Law Day of Action. This act isn't mere symbolism—it's an alarm bell in a moment of genuine peril for our justice system.
Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow.
The threats to judicial independence have become impossible to ignore. When a federal judge faces impeachment threats simply for upholding the law—as Judge James Boasberg did after halting deportation flights—we've crossed a dangerous threshold. We've witnessed instances where judicial directives are contested not through proper legal channels but through public disparagement and apparent noncompliance. Alarmingly, the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan by federal authorities represents an unprecedented escalation, sending a chilling message to judges across the country. When court orders are treated as optional suggestions rather than binding mandates, and when attorneys face intimidation for representing unpopular clients, our constitutional foundations are actively eroding.
A nation of laws requires an independent judiciary. Judges must be able to rule based on law rather than political pressure. Lawyers must be free to zealously advocate without fear of retribution. Without these, equal justice becomes hollow rhetoric. This is starkly illustrated by recent events where law firms representing clients who oppose administration policies have faced executive orders suspending their employees' security clearances and barring them from federal buildings—actions that one judge noted send "chills down my spine" for the "extraordinary power" they represent.
Our judges and courts have no militias. As Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 78, courts depend entirely on their institutional legitimacy and the bar's commitment to uphold their authority. When that authority is undermined through defiance or delegitimized through partisan attacks, we approach a system where power, not principle, determines outcomes. A judge intimidated today means justice denied tomorrow.
This national mobilization on Law Day transcends partisan divides because the rule of law transcends politics. We all lose in a system where legal outcomes depend on who holds power rather than what the law requires. The growing pattern of attempts to circumvent judicial authority—from ignoring court orders to demanding recusal after unfavorable rulings to demonizing "activist" judges—represents an assault on constitutional safeguards that protect us all.
The attacks on judges and lawyers form a two-pronged assault on the constitutional order we pledged to defend. An intimidated bar cannot check government overreach; a weakened judiciary cannot enforce accountability. These essential guardians of liberty now face unprecedented threats.
The oath we took upon joining the bar wasn't a one-time ceremony but a lifelong commitment. On May 1, we renew our promise to the Constitution en masse. We will be a visible reminder that the legal profession stands united against forces that would replace the rule of law with the rule of the powerful.
Our message is simple but urgent: If we allow the independence of courts and lawyers to be compromised today, our other rights will become negotiable tomorrow. No freedom survives when those who defend it are silenced or controlled.
We call on every member of the bar—and indeed every person who values constitutional government—to join this historic stand for democracy. Find your local event at LawDayofAction.org. When we stand together, recommitting to our oath with one voice, we send an unmistakable message: The legal profession will defend our nation of laws and ensure justice remains equal for all.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular