A Massachusetts judge’s threat to halt deportations to South Sudan has sparked a firestorm, raising questions about judicial bias and public safety. On May 21, 2025, District Court Judge Brian E. Murphy called an emergency hearing to block President Donald Trump’s order to deport eight unauthorized migrants. His past ties to a group that shunned the term “illegal” add fuel to the controversy.
Judge Murphy’s ruling targeted the deportation of eight migrants with serious criminal records, including homicide, armed robbery, rape, and sexual assault. The Trump administration ordered their removal to South Sudan after their home countries—Mexico, Cuba, Myanmar, Vietnam, Laos, and South Sudan—refused to accept them. Murphy claimed the deportations violated a court order prohibiting transfers to third countries.
Murphy, nominated to the bench by former President Joe Biden in 2024, argued the migrants lacked a fair chance to contest their deportations. Government officials fired back, noting the migrants’ long histories with the immigration system offered ample opportunity to object. Actions, it seems, should have consequences.
From 2014 to 2024, Murphy served as a board member of the Massachusetts Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (MACDL), including as treasurer from 2016 to 2023. His name appeared on a MACDL letter pushing to end arrests for minor crimes like using counterfeit money or breaking and entering. Curiously, Murphy told the Senate in 2024 he couldn’t recall the letter or find it despite “diligent searches.”
“I diligently searched my records,” Murphy wrote, claiming no memory of the MACDL letter. That’s a convenient lapse for a judge now wielding power over high-stakes deportations. His selective memory raises eyebrows about transparency.
The MACDL letter wasn’t Murphy’s only point of contention. The group argued the term “illegal” is “inherently prejudicial,” tying it to race and ethnicity. Murphy distanced himself, stating, “It is a crime to enter the United States improperly.”
“I do not believe it is inappropriate to use accurate language,” Murphy added in his Senate questionnaire. Yet his threat to block deportations aligns oddly with MACDL’s soft-on-crime stance. The contradiction leaves observers questioning his impartiality.
The migrants in question aren’t minor offenders. One, whose home country refused him, raped and sexually assaulted a mentally handicapped victim, prompting ICE to seek a third country for deportation. Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons didn’t mince words: “We had to find a third country to remove this public safety threat.”
Lyons’ statement underscores the urgency of removing dangerous criminals. Murphy’s intervention, however, risks keeping them in the U.S. under the guise of procedural fairness. It’s a move that prioritizes legal technicalities over community safety.
Murphy’s emergency hearing on May 21, 2025, focused on a court order barring third-country deportations. He insisted the migrants deserved a meaningful chance to object. But with their extensive criminal records, one wonders how many chances they’ve already had.
The government’s counterargument is straightforward: these migrants have navigated the immigration system for years. Their objections, if any, should’ve surfaced long ago. Delaying deportations now feels like a stall tactic.
Murphy’s MACDL ties add another layer of skepticism. The group’s push to decriminalize minor offenses and avoid “prejudicial” terms like “illegal” suggests a broader agenda. Murphy’s claim of dissent from their views feels hollow when his rulings echo their priorities.
Murphy’s failure to disclose the MACDL letter to the Senate is troubling. He claimed he searched “multiple times” but found nothing. For a judge, such oversight—or obfuscation—undermines public trust.
The migrants’ home countries rejected them due to their violent crimes, leaving South Sudan as a last resort. ICE’s efforts to protect the public are now tangled in Murphy’s legal wrangling. It’s a classic case of bureaucracy trumping common sense.
President Trump’s deportation push aims to prioritize safety, but Murphy’s ruling could derail it. His MACDL history and questionable transparency suggest a judge more aligned with progressive ideals than public protection. Time will tell if his threat holds—or if justice prevails.
