CNN —

Turkish police detained at least 30 people in central Istanbul on Sunday as they tried to take part in a Pride March, which authorities had banned as part of a years-long clampdown on LGBTQ+ events, an opposition politician said.

Footage obtained by Reuters showed police scuffling with a group of activists holding rainbow flags in the city center before rounding them up and loading them into police vans.

Kezban Konukcu, a lawmaker from the pro-Kurdish DEM Party who attended the march, told Reuters that at least 30 people had been taken into custody.

Police did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Istanbul governor’s office had earlier deemed the march unlawful and said groups promoting the event were operating “illegally.”

Authorities have banned Pride marches in Turkey’s largest city since 2015, citing public safety and security concerns.

President Tayyip Erdogan’s Islamist-rooted AK Party has adopted increasingly harsh rhetoric against the LGBTQ+ community over the past decade.

In January, Erdogan declared 2025 the “Year of the Family,” describing Turkey’s declining birth rate as an existential threat and accusing the LGBTQ+ movement of undermining traditional values.

“The primary goal of the gender neutralization policies, in which LGBT is used as a battering ram, is the family and the sanctity of the family institution,” Erdogan said in January.

Rights groups have condemned Turkey’s stance. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have warned that government rhetoric and actions are fueling a hostile environment for LGBTQ+ people, contributing to rising discrimination and violence.

Despite the bans, small groups of activists continue to mark Pride Week each year. Organizers say the increasingly aggressive police response reflects broader crackdowns on dissent and freedom of assembly in Turkey.

CNN —

The Trump administration sent eight migrants held in Djibouti for weeks to South Sudan, where they fear they will face violence, following a flurry of court activity on Friday.

A federal judge in Massachusetts denied an emergency request Friday evening from the migrants’ lawyers to block their deportation to the country, where they said their clients could face torture.

In a brief order, United States District Judge Brian E. Murphy wrote that he interpreted a Supreme Court decision delivered a day earlier allowing the deportation to South Sudan to move forward as “binding” on the request, which he said raised “substantially similar claims.” The nation’s highest court on Thursday had ruled in the Trump administration’s favor and cleared the way to remove the eight migrants to South Sudan.

“Law and order prevails,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on X following the decision.

McLaughlin told CNN, “After weeks of delays by activist judges that put our law enforcement in danger, ICE deported these 8 barbaric criminals illegal aliens to South Sudan.”

The detainees’ lawyers had argued they will face torture if they are sent to South Sudan, and say they will be deprived of their constitutional rights. They said the Trump administration is trying to unfairly hurt them with the deportation, which they cast in court filings as “punitive banishment” and “severe punishment” and warn the detainees could be put at risk of being “arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, killed or severely harmed.”

Judge Randolph Moss in the DC District Court heard arguments in a pair of emergency hearings Friday afternoon before saying the case should be moved to Massachusetts.

“It seems self-evident the US government can’t take human beings and send them to a place where their physical well-being is at risk,” such as in South Sudan, either to punish them or to warn other possible migrants to the US of the consequences of illegal immigration, Moss said.

He ordered the Trump administration not to move the migrants until 4:30 p.m. ET and told the migrants’ lawyers they must move fast to try to get a judge to intervene in Massachusetts. The detainees’ lawyers filed their new claims just after 4 p.m. in Massachusetts’ federal district court.

Attorneys for the migrants said sending them to war-torn South Sudan would be further punishment than the sentences they’ve already served for crimes. A lawyer argued to Moss in court that the administration’s actions in this situation are unprecedented and “unlike anything that has ever been done by the US with deportations before.”

The Justice Department, however, argued that the latest ask for relief should’ve been filed earlier, in a different type of claim and a different court than Moss’. “They can’t justify their claim-splitting,” said Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan.

The Justice Department lawyer also expressed frustration to the court that the detainees’ legal approach appears to be an attempt to “drag … out” their being moved out of Djibouti, and said that the US diplomatic relations could be hurt by the multiple rounds of the court fight, as it negotiates with other countries to take migrants it seeks to deport.

The eight detainees in Djibouti are from countries including Myanmar, Sudan, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba, according to court filings, but the administration since springtime has moved fast to put detainees like them and others on planes and send them to other countries, often with a history of significant safety risks and brutality.

The administration also revealed in court Friday additional details on the diplomatic correspondence between the United States and South Sudan, saying that upon arrival, the migrants would be granted an immigration status in accordance with South Sudan laws and immigration procedures, and that the US did not ask for them to be detained there.

Moss said on Friday he believed the lawyers for the detainees were “doing their best to protect the lives and well-being of human beings.”

He also cited a stark travel warning from the State Department cautioning Americans headed to the country. “It does appear placing people in South Sudan does pose significant risks to their physical safety,” Moss said.

Still, Moss limited how much he intervened over the US’ plans. The judge explained the very short stay he issued Friday afternoon by saying he didn’t believe courts should issue administrative stays that last longer than is necessary.

This headline and story have been updated with additional developments.

NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!

Eight migrants were denied a request by a Massachusetts federal judge on Friday to have their deportation to South Sudan halted.

Justice Department lawyers said the men were scheduled to be flown to South Sudan on Friday at 7 p.m. ET after two courts considered their emergency request on July 4, a day when courts would otherwise be closed, Reuters reported.

The migrants, who are from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Burma, Sudan and Vietnam, filed new claims on Thursday after the U.S. Supreme Court clarified that Boston federal Judge Brian Murphy couldn’t require the Department of Homeland Security to hold them.

Also on Friday, federal Judge Randolph Moss in Washington paused the Trump administration’s efforts to deport the eight migrants to South Sudan, the latest case testing the legality of the Trump administration’s push to ship illegal immigrants to third countries.

JUDGE STRIKES DOWN TRUMP ORDER PREVENTING ASYLUM REQUESTS, PROTECTIONS FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Moss had briefly halted the deportation after lawyers for the migrants filed the new claims in his court and sent the case to Boston, where Murphy denied the claim.

The eight men argued their deportations to South Sudan would violate the Constitution, which prohibits “cruel and unusual” punishment, Reuters reported. They have been convicted of various crimes, with four of them convicted of murder, the Department of Homeland Security has said.

They were detained for six weeks on a military base in Djibouti instead of being brought back to the United States.

On Thursday, the migrants filed new claims after the Supreme Court said that a federal judge in Boston could no longer require the Department of Homeland Security to hold them, Reuters reported.

TRUMP ADMIN ASK SCOTUS TO AUTHORIZE RAPID MIGRANT DEPORTATIONS TO COUNTRIES OTHER THAN THEIR OWN

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House.

During Friday’s hearing with Moss, a government lawyer argued that court orders halting agreed-upon deportations pose a serious problem for U.S. diplomatic relations and would make foreign countries less likely to accept transfers of migrants in the future.

The case is the latest development over the legality of the Trump administration’s campaign to deter immigration by shipping migrants to locations other than their countries of origin pursuant to deals with other countries, according to Reuters.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

“It seems to me almost self-evident that the United States government cannot take human beings and send them to circumstances in which their physical well-being is at risk simply either to punish them or send a signal to others,” Moss said during the hearing.

CNN —

The Trump administration sent eight migrants held in Djibouti for weeks to South Sudan, where they fear they will face violence, following a flurry of court activity on Friday.

A federal judge in Massachusetts denied an emergency request Friday evening from the migrants’ lawyers to block their deportation to the country, where they said their clients could face torture.

In a brief order, United States District Judge Brian E. Murphy wrote that he interpreted a Supreme Court decision delivered a day earlier allowing the deportation to South Sudan to move forward as “binding” on the request, which he said raised “substantially similar claims.” The nation’s highest court on Thursday had ruled in the Trump administration’s favor and cleared the way to remove the eight migrants to South Sudan.

“Law and order prevails,” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said on X following the decision.

McLaughlin told CNN, “After weeks of delays by activist judges that put our law enforcement in danger, ICE deported these 8 barbaric criminals illegal aliens to South Sudan.”

The detainees’ lawyers had argued they will face torture if they are sent to South Sudan, and say they will be deprived of their constitutional rights. They said the Trump administration is trying to unfairly hurt them with the deportation, which they cast in court filings as “punitive banishment” and “severe punishment” and warn the detainees could be put at risk of being “arbitrarily imprisoned, tortured, killed or severely harmed.”

Judge Randolph Moss in the DC District Court heard arguments in a pair of emergency hearings Friday afternoon before saying the case should be moved to Massachusetts.

“It seems self-evident the US government can’t take human beings and send them to a place where their physical well-being is at risk,” such as in South Sudan, either to punish them or to warn other possible migrants to the US of the consequences of illegal immigration, Moss said.

He ordered the Trump administration not to move the migrants until 4:30 p.m. ET and told the migrants’ lawyers they must move fast to try to get a judge to intervene in Massachusetts. The detainees’ lawyers filed their new claims just after 4 p.m. in Massachusetts’ federal district court.

Attorneys for the migrants said sending them to war-torn South Sudan would be further punishment than the sentences they’ve already served for crimes. A lawyer argued to Moss in court that the administration’s actions in this situation are unprecedented and “unlike anything that has ever been done by the US with deportations before.”

The Justice Department, however, argued that the latest ask for relief should’ve been filed earlier, in a different type of claim and a different court than Moss’. “They can’t justify their claim-splitting,” said Justice Department attorney Hashim Mooppan.

The Justice Department lawyer also expressed frustration to the court that the detainees’ legal approach appears to be an attempt to “drag … out” their being moved out of Djibouti, and said that the US diplomatic relations could be hurt by the multiple rounds of the court fight, as it negotiates with other countries to take migrants it seeks to deport.

The eight detainees in Djibouti are from countries including Myanmar, Sudan, Mexico, Vietnam, Laos and Cuba, according to court filings, but the administration since springtime has moved fast to put detainees like them and others on planes and send them to other countries, often with a history of significant safety risks and brutality.

The administration also revealed in court Friday additional details on the diplomatic correspondence between the United States and South Sudan, saying that upon arrival, the migrants would be granted an immigration status in accordance with South Sudan laws and immigration procedures, and that the US did not ask for them to be detained there.

Moss said on Friday he believed the lawyers for the detainees were “doing their best to protect the lives and well-being of human beings.”

He also cited a stark travel warning from the State Department cautioning Americans headed to the country. “It does appear placing people in South Sudan does pose significant risks to their physical safety,” Moss said.

Still, Moss limited how much he intervened over the US’ plans. The judge explained the very short stay he issued Friday afternoon by saying he didn’t believe courts should issue administrative stays that last longer than is necessary.

This headline and story have been updated with additional developments.

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday cleared the way for the Trump administration to deport a group of migrants with criminal records held at a U.S. naval base in Djibouti, clarifying the scope of its earlier order that lifted restrictions on removals to countries that are not deportees’ places of origin.

Shortly after the ruling, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Tricia McLaughlin announced, “these sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,” calling it a “win for the rule of law.”

In a social media post Thursday evening in response to the ruling, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote, “Yet another rogue district court judge has been rebuked by the Supreme Court thanks to the tireless work of dedicated DOJ attorneys. @POTUS will continue to exercise his full authority to remove killers and violent criminal illegal aliens from our country.”

The high court’s follow-up ruling came after it paused a federal judge’s April injunction that prevented the Trump administration from deporting migrants to so-called third countries without first giving them notice of the destination and a chance to contest their deportation there by raising fears of torture, persecution or death.

Soon after that order by the Supreme Court last month, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts said that a decision he issued in May requiring the Trump administration to provide interviews with U.S. asylum officers to the men detained in Djibouti before removing them to South Sudan remained “in full force and effect.”

Those men — who hail from Latin America and Asia, and have been convicted of serious crimes in the U.S. — have been held at the Djibouti base for weeks after Murphy ordered the Department of Homeland Security to retain custody of them. The Trump administration has described deplorable and dangerous conditions faced by the personnel sent to guard the men in Djibouti, including concerns about malaria, rocket attacks, inadequate security protocols and triple-digit outdoor temperatures.

Murphy issued his order in May after finding that the Trump administration violated his initial injunction when it attempted to swiftly remove the migrants to South Sudan with less than 24 hours’ notice and no chance to raise fear-based claims. The world’s youngest country, South Sudan remains plagued by violence and political instability, with the State Department warning Americans not to travel there.

According to the Justice Department, the State Department has received “credible diplomatic assurances” from South Sudan that the migrants will not be subject to torture.

The Supreme Court on Thursday said Murphy’s May order “cannot now be used to enforce an injunction that our stay rendered unenforceable,” referring to the April injunction from Murphy that the high court paused last month. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a concurring statement that, while she opposed the Supreme Court’s initial pause, “I do not see how a district court can compel compliance with an order that this Court has stayed.”

In a dissent that was joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the high court’s majority was effectively allowing the Trump administration to pursue “unlawful ends,” expressing concern about the safety of the deportees.

“What the Government wants to do, concretely, is send the eight noncitizens it illegally removed from the United States from Djibouti to South Sudan, where they will be turned over to the local authorities without regard for the likelihood that they will face torture or death,” Sotomayor wrote.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Randolph Moss of the District of Columbia briefly paused the deportation of the eight men to South Sudan, issuing an administrative stay in response to a last-ditch emergency motion filed by their attorneys.

However, in a subsequent hearing later Friday, Moss said he would allow his stay to expire at 4:30 p.m. ET. He also said he would transfer the case back to Judge Murphy.

Murphy subsequently denied the migrants’ request to block the deportation, writing in his order Friday: “This Court interprets these Supreme Court orders as binding on this new petition, as Petitioners are now raising substantially similar claims, and therefore Petitioners motion is denied.”

The deportation flight to South Sudan had been scheduled to depart from Djibouti at 7 p.m. ET, the Justice Department told Moss during the earlier hearing. It was unclear on Friday night if it departed at that time.

The legal fight

The Supreme Court’s original order last month was a significant legal victory for President Trump and his mass deportation campaign. As part of that effort, administration officials have sought to convince countries around the globe, including in far-flung parts of Africa, to accept deportees who are not their citizens. Several countries — including El Salvador, Costa Rica, Panama and Kosovo — have already agreed to host migrants from other nations who have been deported from the U.S.

The high court’s decision in June was unsigned and did not contain any reasoning, prompting questions as to whether the Trump administration could move to deport the migrants being held in Djibouti to South Sudan, as it was initially trying to do. The three liberal justices — Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented.

After Murphy clarified that the Department of Homeland Security could not yet remove the men without first providing them additional process, Solicitor General D. John Sauer sought further word from the justices.

Sauer, who represents the government before the court, argued that the justice’s decision meant there is no injunction in place barring the deportation of the migrants in Djibouti. Murphy’s ruling, he wrote, “is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals.”

“This court should immediately make clear that the district court’s enforcement order has no effect, and put a swift end to the ongoing irreparable harm to the executive branch and its agents, who remain under baseless threat of contempt as they are forced to house dangerous criminal aliens at a military base in the Horn of Africa that now lies on the borders of a regional conflict,” Sauer said.

Immigration attorneys disagreed and told the Supreme Court in a filing that Murphy’s May order “is the only shield that preserves and protects their statutory, regulatory, and due process rights to seek protection from torture in South Sudan.”

They said that the judge’s order requiring the government to retain custody of the eight deportees and provide them reasonable-fear interviews was simply a remedy that was issued to address the Trump administration’s violation of his injunction.

Plus, the immigration attorneys said that when the Justice Department first sought the Supreme Court’s intervention to resume third-country deportations, it did not seek relief from that follow-up order regarding the attempted removals to South Sudan.

“Because the district court’s remedial order is not before the court, it remains in effect,” they argued. “Any other conclusion would reward the government’s defiance of the district court’s orders.”

The back-and-forth over the third country removals before the Supreme Court has played out on its emergency docket, where the Trump administration has requested relief while legal proceedings play out. Decisions on those requests are typically made only with written briefing and no oral argument, and the court’s decisions often do not include its reasoning or how its members voted.

The Trump administration has filed more than a dozen emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, many arising from its efforts to curtail illegal immigration into the U.S. The high court has allowed the government to end two programs protecting nearly 1 million migrants from deportation while the challenges move forward.

But it has also said that migrants facing swift deportation under a 1798 law known as the Alien Enemies Act must receive notice and an opportunity to challenge their removals in court.