National broadcaster ABC reported that four Australian women and nine of their children and grandchildren departed Roj Camp on Friday, citing the camp’s director, with Syrian authorities transporting them to Damascus to facilitate onward travel to Australia.

The Australian government said it was not involved in the operation and maintained its long-standing policy against actively repatriating individuals from such camps.“The Australian Government is not and will not repatriate people from Syria,” a government spokesperson said in a statement.

The spokesperson added that intelligence and security agencies were continuing to monitor developments closely and were prepared for any Australians who attempted to return independently.

“People in this cohort need to know that if they have committed a crime and if they return to Australia they will be met with the full force of the law,” the statement said.Canberra said its “overriding priority” remained the safety of Australians and the protection of national interests, reflecting ongoing political sensitivity surrounding the possible return of families linked to members of the extremist group Daesh.

Roj Camp, located in northeastern Syria, houses women and children associated with suspected Daesh fighters following the collapse of the group’s territorial control in Iraq and Syria.

The families reported this week are believed to be part of a group of 34 Australians who were unable to leave the camp during a failed repatriation attempt in February, reportedly due to coordination issues involving Syrian authorities.

At the time, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said the government would not provide assistance, using the phrase: “You make your bed, you lie in it,” to describe Canberra’s position.The return of Daesh-linked families has remained highly divisive in Australia, with some lawmakers and security officials warning that repatriation could create long-term domestic security risks.

Humanitarian organizations, however, have argued that women and especially children trapped in the camps face deteriorating living conditions, legal limbo, and prolonged statelessness.In 2023, Save the Children Australia filed legal action on behalf of 11 women and 20 children in Roj Camp, seeking government intervention to secure their return.

Australia’s Federal Court ruled against the group, finding that the government did not exercise legal control over the detainees’ confinement in Syria and therefore was not obligated to repatriate them.

Australia has previously repatriated some women and children from Syrian detention camps under earlier operations, but officials have remained cautious, balancing humanitarian concerns against domestic political and security pressures.

The latest developments suggest that any return of Australian citizens from Roj Camp will likely proceed without direct government facilitation, under close scrutiny from law enforcement and intelligence agencies upon arrival.

Jose Serrano, a serving U.S. soldier who completed three tours in Afghanistan, said his wife, Deisy Rivera Ortega, was arrested on April 14 during an appointment with immigration officials as the couple pursued steps toward securing her permanent residency.

“A person opened the door, escorted us through the hallway, and at the end of the hallway, my wife got arrested,” Serrano said, adding that he was not provided documentation or an explanation at the time of the detention.

Rivera Ortega, a native of El Salvador, is being held at the El Paso Service Processing Center and has challenged her detention in U.S. District Court. Her legal team has also sought to block any deportation to Mexico, arguing she has no ties to the country and citing restrictions on travel there for active-duty U.S.

troops.Her attorney, Matthew James Kozik, said Rivera Ortega held a valid work permit and had previously been granted withholding of removal to El Salvador, a form of protection that prevents deportation to a country where an individual may face harm.

The Department of Homeland Security said Rivera Ortega entered the United States illegally in 2016 and was issued a final order of removal by an immigration judge in December 2019.

In a statement, the agency said that work authorization does not confer legal status and that she remains in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody pending removal proceedings. It did not specify whether deportation to Mexico was under consideration.

The case comes amid policy changes by the administration that have reduced discretionary protections previously extended to military families. Rivera Ortega had applied under the “parole in place” program, which has historically provided certain undocumented spouses of U.S. service members a pathway toward legal residency.

However, the Department of Homeland Security last April rescinded a 2022 policy that treated a family member’s military service as a significant mitigating factor in immigration enforcement decisions. The revised guidance states that military service alone does not exempt individuals from enforcement of immigration laws.

Serrano said he visited his wife at the detention facility on Sunday, where they communicated through a partition, as legal proceedings continue.

A three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade will consider lawsuits filed by 24 mostly Democratic-led states and two small businesses seeking to block the tariffs, which took effect on February 24.

The plaintiffs contend the policy sidesteps a decision by the US Supreme Court that struck down a broad set of earlier tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The Trump administration has defended the tariffs as a lawful response to persistent trade imbalances, arguing that the United States’ long-standing deficit importing more goods than it exports justifies emergency measures.

The tariffs were enacted under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974, which permits duties of up to 15% for a limited period in cases of significant balance-of-payments deficits or to prevent a sharp depreciation of the U.S. dollar.

Plaintiffs argue that the provision is intended for short-term monetary crises and does not apply to routine trade deficits, which they say do not meet the statutory threshold.The legal dispute marks a further test of executive authority over trade policy, an area traditionally involving congressional oversight.

Trump has made tariffs a central element of his economic and foreign policy agenda in his second term, asserting broad unilateral powers to impose import duties.

The case follows a February 20 ruling by the Supreme Court that invalidated many of Trump’s earlier tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, finding that the statute did not grant the authority he had claimed.

The current lawsuits do not challenge other tariffs imposed under more conventional legal frameworks, including duties on steel, aluminum and copper imports.

The case centers on Trump’s order, signed after his return to the White House, which would deny automatic U.S. citizenship to children born on American soil to parents residing illegally or temporarily in the country.

Federal courts previously halted the measure, citing the Citizenship Clause of the 14th Amendment, which grants citizenship to nearly all individuals born in the United States.

The administration argues that the 14th Amendment, ratified after the Civil War, was intended to secure citizenship rights for formerly enslaved people and does not extend to children of undocumented migrants or temporary visa holders.

In filings, Solicitor General John Sauer contended that eligibility for citizenship requires both birth in the United States and being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a phrase the administration interprets narrowly.

Lower courts rejected that interpretation, relying on longstanding precedent, including the 1898 Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed citizenship for a U.S.-born individual of foreign parents.Legal scholars cited in the proceedings said the court’s historical reliance on precedent may weigh against the administration’s position.

Steven Schwinn, a law professor at the University of Illinois Chicago, said the court has traditionally looked to historical practice in constitutional interpretation.Trump confirmed he would attend the hearing, marking a rare instance of a sitting president observing oral arguments in a case involving their own administration.

While presidents have historically maintained distance from court proceedings, Trump has previously attended judicial ceremonies, including the 2017 investiture of Justice Neil Gorsuch.

The Supreme Court currently has a 6–3 conservative majority, with three justices appointed by Trump during his first term.The administration has argued that automatic citizenship for children of undocumented migrants acts as an incentive for illegal immigration and so-called “birth tourism.”

Opponents, including the American Civil Liberties Union, said the policy would undermine constitutional protections and create uncertainty over the citizenship status of millions of Americans.

The case follows a separate setback for Trump in February, when the Supreme Court struck down much of his global tariff policy. Trump criticized that ruling and renewed his attack on judicial decisions ahead of the current hearing.

A decision on the birthright citizenship case is expected by late June or early July.

The filings, tied to long-running litigation over migrant child detention standards, detail conditions at the Dilley detention facility, where children and families faced virus outbreaks and extended lockdowns in December and January.

Lawyers and monitors said conditions remained concerning even as the number of detained children declined in recent weeks.Under standards stemming from the Flores settlement, children are generally not to be held in custody for more than 20 days.

However, government data cited in the filings showed that about 595 children were detained beyond that limit during December and January.Of those, approximately 265 were held for more than 50 days and 55 for over 100 days, according to the documents.

This marked an increase from a prior disclosure indicating around 400 children exceeded the limit between August and September.Lawyers argued that prolonged detention, combined with reported deficiencies in care, risked worsening physical and psychological harm among minors.

Attorneys and advocacy groups cited cases of inadequate medical treatment, poor food quality and limited access to legal counsel. One filing described a 13-year-old girl who attempted self-harm after being denied prescribed antidepressants and access to her mother.

Government records referenced in the filings stated there had been no placements on suicide watch.Advocates who visited the facility in March said that while the number of detained children had dropped to about 85, systemic issues persisted. Reports also cited the presence of worms in food and insufficient healthcare access.

The case of a young child detained earlier this year drew protests, including demonstrations by detainees within the facility.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a statement that detention standards provide for basic necessities, including adequate food and water, and described detention as a consequence of migration choices.

It added that authorities were working to expedite deportations.The administration of Donald Trump is seeking to end the Flores settlement, arguing it constrains enforcement and imposes costs.

The case is being overseen by Dolly Gee of the Central District of California, with a hearing scheduled later this month to review compliance and conditions.