Supreme Court crushes leftist judge’s attempt to halt Trump deportation plans

In a decisive smackdown, the Supreme Court has put a rogue district court judge in his place over a contentious deportation policy.

The Daily Caller reported that with a 7-2 ruling on June 27, 2025, the court overruled District Court Judge Brian Murphy’s attempt to block the Trump administration’s third-country deportation efforts, affirming an earlier directive from June 23, 2025.

Let’s rewind to April 18, 2025, when a preliminary injunction initially halted the administration’s deportation plans. That injunction was stayed in full by the Supreme Court on June 23, 2025, clearing the path for the policy to resume.

Yet, mere hours later, Judge Murphy, a Biden appointee, doubled down, insisting his order to stop the deportation of eight migrants to South Sudan still held water.

Supreme Court Asserts Authority Over Defiant Judge

Talk about a bold move—Murphy’s defiance didn’t just raise eyebrows; it practically begged for a judicial reprimand.

The Supreme Court noted that the only support he cited for his stance was a dissenting opinion, hardly a legal leg to stand on.

On June 24, 2025, the Trump administration fired back, filing a motion urging the court to clarify its order. Their filing called Murphy’s ruling a “lawless act of defiance” that meddled with diplomatic relations and stalled executive authority. That’s not just a zinger; it’s a policy critique with teeth.

Fast forward to June 27, 2025, and the Supreme Court delivered its verdict with a 7-2 decision, stating Murphy had clearly violated their earlier directive. The majority opinion was crystal clear: “Our June 23 order stayed the April 18 preliminary injunction in full.” No wiggle room there, Your Honor.

The court went further, dismantling any notion that a remedial order from May 21, 2025, could somehow enforce a stayed injunction. If the Supreme Court says it’s unenforceable, it’s time to pack up the gavel and move on. This wasn’t just a ruling; it was a lesson in judicial hierarchy.

Even Justice Elena Kagan, who dissented on the original stay, concurred on June 27, 2025, that the lower court had no grounds to block deportations.

She wrote, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.” A reluctant agreement, perhaps, but a nod to the rule of law nonetheless.

Contrast that with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who dissented from the June 27 decision. “The government may not deport noncitizens to a country where they are likely to be tortured or killed,” she argued. While the concern for safety is understandable, the majority’s ruling prioritizes legal clarity over emotional appeals.

Dissenting Voices Highlight Humanitarian Concerns

Sotomayor didn’t stop there, criticizing the majority for relying on outdated precedent. She noted the district court had mere “moments to decide” with lives at stake. Yet, one might argue that judicial restraint isn’t about snap decisions but respecting higher court mandates.

The Trump administration, for its part, has consistently framed this policy as a necessary tool for managing border security and international agreements.

Critics may cry foul, but enforcing third-country deportations is a lawful executive function, not a progressive morality play. The Supreme Court’s ruling aligns with that reality.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump addressed the ruling during a press conference at the White House on June 27, 2025. His administration’s push for clarity paid off, reinforcing their stance against judicial overreach. It’s a win for policy, not posturing.

This case isn’t just about eight migrants or South Sudan; it’s about who gets to call the shots on national policy. When a district judge tries to play Supreme Court, it’s not just defiance—it’s a disruption of the constitutional balance. The 7-2 decision sends a message: follow the chain of command.