The Trump administration can resume the deportation of migrants to the third countries, the rules of the US Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court has cleared the road on Monday for the administration of President Donald Trump to resume the deportation of migrants to other countries, but it provided them with an opportunity to show the damage they might face, and received another victory in his aggressive endeavor to collectively deport.

The judges raised a judicial order that require the government to grant migrants to be deported to the so -called third countries as a “meaningful opportunity” to inform officials that they are at risk of torture in their new destination while the legal challenge plays. The American boycott judge in Boston Brian Murphy issued the matter on April 18.

The Supreme Court’s decision on Monday was not signed and it came without any logic, as is common when the Supreme Court decided to emerges.

In an acute opposition, Judge Sonia Sotomoor, who joined two other liberal judges, criticized the decision of the majority, describing it as a “ill -treatment” of the court’s estimate and a warning that the court’s action exposes “thousands to the risk of torture or death.”

She wrote in the opposition, which Judges joined Elena Kagan and Kitanji Brown Jackson.

The US Department of Internal Security spokeswoman, Tricia McLeulin, suggested that the deportation of the third countries can be restarted soon. “They shot the deportation planes,” she said, describing the decision as “a victory over the safety and security of the American people.”

After the administration moved in February to intensify rapid deportations to the third countries, immigrant rights groups filed a collective lawsuit on behalf of a group of immigrants who seek to prevent them from removing them to such places without notice and an opportunity to confirm the damage they might face.

On May 21, Murphy found that the administration had violated his order to impose more measures in an attempt to send a group of immigrants to the unstable politics, a country that the US State Department warned of the Americans to avoid “due to crime, kidnapping and armed conflict.”

“Horrent” repercussions: a lawyer for immigrants

The judge’s intervention prompted the US government to keep migrants at a military base in Djibouti, although US officials later said that one of the deportees, a man from Myanmar, would instead be deported to his homeland. Among the other travelers who were on the trip, one of them is southern Sudan while others were from Cuba, Mexico, Laus and Vietnam.

“The repercussions of the Supreme Court order will be terrible,” said Tina Ryano, Executive Director of the National Law of Migration, which helps to represent the prosecutor.

Realmuto said that the decision “raises the protection of the due legal procedures that were protecting our separation members from torture and death.”

Murphy found that the administration policy of “implementing the removal of the third country without making a significant notice and opportunity to submit fear -based claims” is likely to violate the requirements of the legal procedures due under the American constitution.

Legal procedures generally require the government to make a notice and an opportunity to listen before taking some negative measures.

The option of the third essential countries, the Trump administration argued

The administration, in the presentation of the emergency on May 27 to the Supreme Court, said that all migrants suffering from South Sudan have committed “heinous crimes” in the United States, including killing, intentional burning or armed theft.

The Supreme Court also told that the third country’s policy has already complied with the due legal procedures and is decisive to remove immigrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to restore them.

In March, the administration issued instructions that if a third country gave a reliable diplomatic guarantee that it will not be persecuted or tortured migrants, individuals there may be deported “without the need to conduct more procedures.”

Without this confirmation, if the immigrant expressed his fear of removing that country, the American authorities will establish the possibility of persecution or torture, and the person may refer to the Migration Court, according to the directives.

Flood cases

The conflict is the latest cases that involve legal challenges for the various policies of Trump, including migration, to have already reached the highest judicial body in the country since his return to office in January.

The May Trump Supreme Court allowed the end of humanitarian programs that allowed hundreds of thousands of immigrants to temporarily live and work in the United States. However, the judges in April have erred in the management of the administration of some of the targeted immigrants that they are insufficient under the protection of legal procedures due to the United States constitution.