Boom: SCOTUS 'Clarifies' Its Stay in Sudan Deportation Case, Smacks Boston Judge Who Tried End-Around

On Thursday afternoon, the Supreme Court issued a follow-up order in a closely-watched case involving the removal of illegal aliens to third countries. In a 7-2 ruling, the court granted the Trump administration's motion to clarify and affirmed that its stay of the lower court's April 18 injunction meant that the lower court could not then use its later, derivative orders to essentially continue enforcing the now-stayed injunction.

Yes, 7-2 — Justice Elena Kagan concurred with Thursday's ruling, despite the fact that she'd dissented from the court's prior ruling granting the stay.

NEW: SCOTUS slaps down federal judge in Boston - green lighting Trump admin efforts to deport a group of illegal aliens with egregious criminal histories & final deportation orders going as far back as 1999 to a third party country - potentially South Sudan. Murderers on plane.
— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) July 3, 2025

There's quite a bit to unpack here, and we're heading into a holiday weekend, so I'll try to distill it as succinctly as possible:

The case is styled D.V.D. vs. DHS.
It involves six illegal aliens who were convicted of serious crimes (homicide, robbery, etc.) and whose own home countries refused to take them back, so the administration sought to have them removed to a third country.
On April 18, 2025, Judge Brian Murphy (United States District Court of Massachusetts) issued a preliminary injunction barring the aliens' removal without a "meaningful opportunity" to apply for what's known as a "Convention Against Torture" (CAT) exemption.
The administration made arrangements to have them removed to South Sudan and maintains that they were given appropriate due process prior to that.
On May 21, 2025, as the aliens were in transit, Murphy issued a remedial order essentially halting the flights and requiring that they be kept in DHS custody and provided "a meaningful opportunity to assert claims for protection under the Convention Against Torture before initiating removal to a third country."
They've been stuck with DHS personnel in Djibouti since that time.
On June 23, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the administration's application for stay (of the April 18 injunction), which meant the administration could proceed with the removal.
Later that same day, Murphy issued an order stating his May 21 rulings remained in effect despite the stay, (based largely on Justice Sotomayor's dissent, which pointed out that the subsequent orders technically weren't before the court), essentially hamstringing the administration — again.
The administration filed a motion to clarify with the Supreme Court, which has now granted that motion (and "clarified" that Murphy's all wet).

Is This District Court Judge's Response to SCOTUS Order on Third-Country Removal Case Too Clever by Half?

The Supreme Court's ruling is brief and unsigned/per curiam. Some highlights from it:

On June 23, we stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction pending disposition of any appeal and petition for writ of certiorari. Later that day, however, the District Court issued a minute order stating that the May 21 remedial order “remain[ed] in full force and effect,” “notwithstanding” our stay of the preliminary injunction. ECF Doc. 176. The only authority it cited was the dissent from the stay order.
...
Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full. The May 21 remedial order cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable.

But here's the best part. As noted above, Justice Kagan, who dissented from the original stay order, concurred with today's ruling. Here, she explains why succinctly (citations omitted):

I voted to deny the Government’s previous stay application in this case, and I continue to believe that this Court should not have stayed the District Court’s April 18 order enjoining the Government from deporting non-citizens to third countries without notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard. But a majority of this Court saw things differently, and I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed. Because continued enforcement of the District Court’s May 21, 2025 order would do just that, I vote to grant the Government’s motion for clarification.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from today's ruling, of course.

So, now Judge Murphy has been schooled on not attempting an end-around of a Supreme Court ruling...and DHS may proceed with escorting the aliens to their intended destination in South Sudan.

Editor's Note: This article was updated [twice] post-publication for (ironically) clarification - had it right the first time: The majority opinion is per curiam (so we don't know who actually wrote it); Kagan authored a concurrence.

Editor's Note: We're holding a BIG BEAUTIFUL SALE to celebrate the passage of the OBBB. President Trump's agenda is moving forward — celebrate with us and support our reporting as we Make America Great Again. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your membership.