The U.S. Supreme Court just handed President Trump a win, greenlighting the deportation of eight men to South Sudan, as Politico reports. These men, detained in a shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti, have been at the center of a heated legal clash. Now, the conservative-leaning court has cleared the path for the administration to act swiftly.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, lifted a block on deporting eight men held for six weeks in Djibouti. The men, foreigners convicted of serious crimes, were caught in a legal standoff between the Trump White House and U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy. The ruling marks a victory for the administration’s tough-on-crime immigration stance.

The saga began when the men, many serving lengthy sentences, were slated for deportation to South Sudan, a nation under a State Department “do not travel” warning.

Seven of them have no ties to the country, raising questions about the plan’s fairness. Yet, the administration argues this is a necessary move when home countries refuse to take back deportees.

Legal tug-of-war intensifies

In May, the men were on a flight, likely headed to South Sudan, when Judge Murphy, a Joe Biden appointee, halted their deportation.

He ruled that the 16-hour notice given was insufficient for them to object to being sent to a potentially dangerous destination. Murphy’s order demanded advance notice and a chance to challenge third-country deportations, sparking White House fury.

The Trump administration accused Murphy of overstepping, claiming his interference damaged ties with foreign governments like South Sudan’s regime. They didn’t hold back, alleging Murphy defied the Supreme Court itself. It’s no surprise the administration ran to the justices for backup, seeking to squash Murphy’s roadblock.

Last week, the Supreme Court paused Murphy’s nationwide injunction, which had required meaningful objection opportunities for deportees. The 6-3 ruling, issued without explanation, left lower courts guessing. Murphy, undeterred, maintained his specific order protecting the Djibouti detainees, arguing it hadn’t been appealed.

Supreme Court steps in

The administration, smelling defiance, rushed back to the Supreme Court, calling Murphy’s stance a “lawless act.” Within hours, the justices issued an unsigned order siding with Trump, stating Murphy couldn’t enforce an injunction they’d already neutered. The court even invited the administration to return if more help was needed to execute the plan.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, throwing shade at the court’s coziness with the administration.

“Other litigants must follow the rules, but the administration has the Supreme Court on speed dial,” Sotomayor quipped. Her jab misses the mark -- courts exist to settle disputes, not to coddle feelings.

Trina Realmuto, the men’s attorney, didn’t mince words either. “They’re now subject to imminent deportation to war-torn South Sudan, a place where they have no ties,” she said. While her concern sounds noble, the men’s criminal records weaken the case for keeping them here.

Detention in Djibouti raises eybrows

For six weeks, the men have been held in a converted shipping container on a U.S. military base in Djibouti. The makeshift detention setup has drawn criticism, but the administration insists it’s a temporary necessity. Murphy never ordered them kept there, despite Trump officials’ false claims, and even suggested they could return to the U.S.

Realmuto called the ruling a green light for “lawlessness.” Her hyperbole ignores the Supreme Court’s authority to override lower courts when national policy is at stake. The men’s plight, while tough, doesn’t erase the need for enforceable immigration laws.

The case shines a spotlight on the Supreme Court’s “shadow docket,” where decisions often come without explanation. Critics cry foul, but the court’s job isn’t to handhold every lower judge through its reasoning. Speed and clarity sometimes trump lengthy essays.

Policy implications loom large

The administration’s push to deport to third countries like South Sudan reflects a broader strategy to tackle immigration loopholes. When home countries won’t cooperate, the U.S. is left with few options. Shipping criminals to unfamiliar lands may seem harsh, but so is letting them stay after serious convictions.

Murphy’s insistence on extra notice and objection rights, while well-intentioned, risks paralyzing deportation efforts. The Supreme Court’s ruling cuts through that red tape, prioritizing action over endless legal wrangling. It’s a nod to common sense over progressive hand-wringing.

Still, the human cost can’t be ignored -- multiple men men with no South Sudan ties face an uncertain fate. The State Department’s travel warning underscores the risks. Yet, the conservative view holds firm: public safety and the rule of law come first, even when the optics aren’t pretty.