In a development raising legal and ethical questions about deportation practices, the White House is set to release details this week on recent removals of violent migrants — including individuals convicted of murder and sexual assault — to South Sudan under President Donald Trump’s direction.

These deportations, which have already faced legal scrutiny, are drawing attention due to the nationalities of those involved and the serious nature of their crimes. Of the group recently removed to South Sudan, only one individual is a citizen of the country. The others are from countries including Cuba, Mexico, Burma (Myanmar), Vietnam, and Laos. Critics and legal advocates argue that this raises serious questions about due process and international standards for removal.

Among those deported is Thongxay Nilakout, a Burmese national convicted of murder in a widely reported 1994 case involving the death of a German tourist in California. Sentenced to life in prison, Nilakout was taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) earlier this year before being deported to South Sudan — a country with which he has no documented ties.

Another case involves Nyo Myint, also from Burma, who was convicted of first-degree sexual assault against a victim described as mentally and physically unable to resist. Myint received a 12-year sentence before being detained by ICE on February 19, 2025.

Despite their origins, both individuals were removed to South Sudan, prompting a legal battle over whether such deportations violate existing court orders that limit removals to countries with a clear legal and safety basis. Attorneys representing the migrants argue that transferring non-South Sudanese individuals to that country could be both unlawful and dangerous.

These legal concerns were underscored during an emergency court hearing in Massachusetts, where U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy, appointed by President Joe Biden, addressed the situation. Judge Murphy ordered the government to “maintain custody and control” over the deportees to ensure the possibility of returning them should the court later deem their removals unlawful.

While Judge Murphy allowed the government flexibility in how it complies with the directive, he emphasized that those affected must be treated humanely during the process.

Attorneys from the National Immigration Litigation Alliance and other advocacy groups say they were caught off guard by the sudden deportations. They told the court that as many as a dozen individuals may have been transferred from various U.S. states to Africa in recent days — without adequate notice or opportunity to contest their removal.

In one instance, an immigration officer reportedly confirmed via email that a Burmese man had been deported, despite the fact that he was never given a translator and was briefed solely in English — a language he did not fully understand. In another case, a woman told legal representatives that her Vietnamese husband and a group of others were flown out of the country early Tuesday morning.

Judge Murphy had previously made it clear that any efforts to deport individuals to high-risk nations, such as Libya, without proper legal process, would violate standing court orders. During the recent hearing, he demanded that administration officials return to court to provide further explanation and accountability regarding the ongoing deportations to South Sudan and possibly other third countries.

At the heart of the issue is the complex intersection of immigration enforcement, legal safeguards, and human rights. The administration has defended its actions by pointing to the serious criminal records of those deported — individuals described by one official as “dangerous offenders.” Yet legal experts caution that even those convicted of serious crimes are entitled to due process and legal clarity when it comes to deportation procedures.

Meanwhile, the larger immigration debate continues to unfold on the national stage. Just days earlier, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling clearing the path for the administration to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for approximately 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. The 8–1 decision lifted a lower court injunction, effectively allowing federal agencies to begin the process of removing individuals who had previously been shielded from deportation due to humanitarian concerns.

In that ruling, the lone dissent came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who expressed concern over the speed and scope of policy shifts without full legislative or procedural review.

The cases now playing out in lower courts — including the one surrounding the deportations to South Sudan — reflect the broader legal and moral questions that immigration officials, lawmakers, and courts must navigate. With hearings ongoing and the legal framework under constant challenge, the outcomes could have lasting implications for U.S. deportation practices and international repatriation protocols.

As new details emerge, both supporters and critics of the administration’s actions are watching closely, waiting to see how the courts will balance the enforcement of immigration laws with the rights and protections guaranteed under U.S. and international law.