The ruling by the Supreme Court that the Trump administration can deport migrants to South Sudan adds a final flourish to a term that saw the 47th president’s agenda on immigration flourish at the high bench. 

The greenlighting of deportations of eight men held at an American military base — in an air-conditioned shipping container— in Djibouti, to South Sudan, the world’s newest country – that emerged from a bloody civil war and could be slipping back into one –, came via the high court’s emergency docket after the Nine’s term officially drew to a close. The ruling, which came without oral arguments, suggests that the court’s summer break could be frenetic rather than fallow. 

The justices last month reversed a trial judge nominated to the bench by President Biden, Brian Murphy of Boston, who froze deportations of migrants to countries other than their own — unless they could prove that torture awaited them at their home country and, being expelled from America, they preferred to be deported elsewhere. Now, the high court has allowed the men to be dispatched to South Sudan, where only one of them holds citizenship. All eight have been convicted of serious crimes.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, Tricia McLaughlin, said in a statement that, “These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day.” The Trump Administration claims in court that it has received “credible diplomatic assurances” that the men will not be tortured.  Justice Sonia Sotomayor reckons in dissent that the court’s ruling demonstrates that the “administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial.” 

Her dissent was joined by a fellow liberal, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. Justice Sotomayor writes that “What the government wants to do … is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death.”

This ruling took the unusual form of a “request for clarification” from the government. The Nine have shown an increasing willingness to respond to government petitions submitted through channels other than the regular process of certiorari. The emergency or shadow docket — where cases are decided without briefing, arguments, or full opinions —has emerged as especially vibrant during the first months of Mr. Trump’s second term. 

In the last five months, with liberal district court judges imposing  numerous national injunctions on Trump Administration policies, the shadow docket has been a key venue for Mr. Trump’s attorneys to fight back. The current administration has exceeded its predecessors in requesting rapid resolution. 

Attorney General Bondi celebrated the Supreme Court’s latest decision on X, reflecting that, “Yet another rogue district judge has been rebuked by the Supreme Court thanks to the tireless work of dedicated DOJ attorneys.” She adds that Mr. Trump “will continue to exercise his full authority to remove killers and violent criminal illegal aliens from our country.”

South Sudan is a landlocked country in East Africa that gained sovereignty in 2011 when 98.8 percent of its citizens voted for independence from Sudan. The young nation descended into civil war from 2013 until 2020, and there are now concerns that violence could return. In March the secretary general of the United Nations, António Guterres, declared that the peace agreement ending that war was “in shambles.” 

The Supreme Court last week granted the Trump administration’s request to end the use of nationwide or universal injunctions in a case that arose from challenges to the 47th president’s executive order that aimed to end birthright citizenship. 

That decision — which limited liberal groups’ ability to “judge shop” for a sympathetic district-level judge who would issue a nationwide injunction —  could allow the administration to proceed with its agenda, on immigration or other matters, even if it suffers from setbacks in district court. In the past, nationwide injunctions have frustrated liberal aspirations as well.  

The high court has also ruled in favor of President Trump — off of the emergency docket — in allowing the government to revoke parole from non-citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela and — temporarily— in allowing deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. That antique statute, which has hitherto only been invoked in the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II, allows the president to deport with minimal due process.

A fuller consideration of the constitutionality of Mr. Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act is now being undertaken by the Fifth United States Appeals Circuit, which earlier this week heard arguments on the merits. Whichever side loses — the Fifth Circuit leans conservative — could then appeal to the Supreme Court, which could make a ruling on the AEA a highlight of its next term.

Mr. Trump this week suffered a setback when a federal district judge, Randolph Moss, ruled that the president exceeded his authority when he issued an executive order barring migrants at the southern border from claiming asylum. Judge Moss, an appointee of President Obama, found that Mr. Trump “lacks the inherent constitutional authority” to alter asylum policy with his Sharpie. That case could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.