Trump attacks federal judge over South Sudan deportation ruling

Trump slams Judge Brian Murphy for halting deportation flight, calling him a "liberal activist" as White House escalates criticism of judiciary.

U.S. President Donald Trump speaks at the White House in Washington, D.C., on May 22, 2025. Photo by Jim Watson/AFP

By Clarisa Sendy and Anna Fadiah

President Donald Trump launched a scathing rebuke Thursday against U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, accusing the Massachusetts-based federal judge of derailing the administration’s immigration agenda by blocking the deportation of several non-citizens to South Sudan. The development marks the latest flashpoint in Trump’s broader battle with the judiciary during his second term in the White House.

In a post on his social media platform Truth Social, Trump alleged that Murphy “knew absolutely nothing about the situation” involving the planned deportation of eight migrants, whom the administration had identified as convicted criminals. Trump warned of national peril if such judicial rulings continued.

“The Judges are absolutely out of control, they’re hurting our Country, and they know nothing about particular situations, or what they are doing — And this must change, IMMEDIATELY,” Trump wrote. “If this is not worked out quickly, and the World is watching, our Country will be under siege again, with hundreds of thousands of hardened criminals, ‘BREAKING DOWN THE WALLS.’”

White House defends deportation decision and denounces judge

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed Trump’s frustrations during a Thursday news briefing, accusing Judge Murphy of overstepping his authority and jeopardizing national security.

“[He] is not the secretary of state. He is not the secretary of defense or the commander in chief,” Leavitt said. “He is a district court judge in Massachusetts. He cannot control the foreign policy or the national security of the United States of America, and to suggest otherwise is being completely absurd.”

According to Leavitt, the eight deportees—all of whom had final removal orders—had been convicted of serious crimes, including murder and sexual offenses. She displayed mug shots during the briefing and emphasized that the administration had acted within legal bounds to remove individuals deemed threats to public safety.

Judge ruled administration violated due process

The conflict began when Judge Murphy determined that the administration had violated a prior court order by rushing to deport the individuals without allowing them adequate time to challenge their removal. Most of those deported were not citizens of South Sudan, and the judge emphasized the potential dangers they might face upon arrival in a war-torn region.

Though Murphy stopped short of ordering the return of the deportees, he did instruct officials to evaluate whether the migrants had a credible fear of persecution or violence if sent to South Sudan. The judge's decision was issued after reports surfaced indicating a government charter flight had landed near a U.S. naval base in Djibouti.

Leavitt said the aircraft would remain in Djibouti for more than two weeks as officials complied with the court’s directive. She did not elaborate on how authorities would carry out the judge’s ordered interviews or the logistics surrounding them.

Administration condemns legal hurdles to immigration enforcement

Trump’s administration has long clashed with federal courts, especially when rulings have stalled or blocked hardline immigration policies. Thursday’s criticism of Murphy fit a familiar pattern, one in which judges are portrayed as roadblocks to what Trump and his allies frame as necessary efforts to secure the border and deport dangerous individuals.

“This judge is not only undermining our immigration system, undermining our foreign policy and our national security, but this judge is undermining the safety of the ICE agents who are putting their lives … on the line to remove this list of illegal criminal terrorists,” Leavitt said.

She added that the administration was hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court would intervene to “rein in these liberal activist judges,” a phrase Trump has frequently employed to cast doubt on judicial impartiality.

Legal uncertainty and rising tension over judicial independence

Murphy, appointed to the bench by President Joe Biden, is one of several federal judges who have reprimanded immigration authorities for failing to provide due process in deportation cases. Similar rulings in other courts have resulted in halted deportation flights and, in rare cases, orders to return deported migrants.

Despite these court orders, the administration has yet to bring back any individuals removed under contested circumstances. The Justice Department has offered limited comment on the matter, and immigration officials continue to face scrutiny for acting ahead of judicial reviews.

The renewed attack on a federal judge comes amid broader tensions over the independence of the judiciary. Chief Justice John Roberts, in a rare rebuke of Trump’s rhetoric, previously defended the impartiality of the federal bench. “Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision,” Roberts said, emphasizing the constitutional role of the judiciary to check executive overreach.

In a year-end report, Roberts warned about the rising threats to judicial safety and the spread of misinformation. His statement followed an increase in threats of violence against judges and efforts to intimidate court officials, including anonymous pizza deliveries to their homes and online doxing.

Trump continues to question court authority

Trump has long questioned the role of the courts in limiting presidential power. His administration frequently battled with the judiciary during his first term, and the confrontations have intensified since his return to office. Legal scholars warn that these public criticisms may have a chilling effect on judicial decision-making, especially in politically sensitive cases involving immigration, executive authority, or national security.

Though lower courts are empowered to block executive actions and those decisions may be appealed, Trump and his allies have often framed such rulings as partisan overreach. Murphy’s order, while narrowly focused on a single deportation flight, has become emblematic of a wider struggle over the limits of presidential authority.

Broader implications for immigration policy and court relations

The implications of Thursday’s dispute extend far beyond the eight individuals who were nearly deported to South Sudan. Legal experts say the case could shape future rulings on how quickly the government can act on removal orders and what rights non-citizens have in contesting deportation.

The case also places pressure on federal agencies to coordinate their immigration enforcement with legal standards and due process requirements. With rising tensions between the executive and judicial branches, some observers worry about the erosion of institutional norms that have traditionally protected judicial independence.

As Trump intensifies his criticism of what he calls an "activist judiciary," the spotlight remains fixed on the courts—and how far they’re willing to go to counterbalance the White House’s aggressive immigration agenda. Whether or not the Supreme Court intervenes in the coming weeks, the showdown between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary is unlikely to fade from the political landscape anytime soon.

More from United States coverage

• Ernie Els defends South Africa as Trump confronts Ramaphosa over white farmer claims
• Trump AI pope image draws sharp criticism from U.S. Cardinal and Catholic bishops
• Trump announces 100% tariff on foreign films to boost U.S. production