By Aaron Miller-
ASHINGTON — A federal district judge on Thursday delivered a striking rebuke to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement policies, ordering the government to take concrete steps to allow Venezuelan migrants deported to El Salvador last year to return to the United States — at U.S. expense — so they can challenge their removals in court.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg- chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia- found that the government had unlawfully deported men to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) — a notorious prison in Tecoluca, El Salvador — under an 18th-century statute known as the Alien Enemies Act without providing basic due process protections guaranteed by U.S. law.
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
In a concise opinion, Boasberg sharply criticized the administration’s handling of the case and said the government’s responses to earlier court orders were dismissive and insufficient. “Apparently not interested in participating in this process, the Government’s responses essentially told the Court to pound sand,” the judge wrote.
The legal fight dates back to March 2025, when the Trump administration invoked the rarely used Alien Enemies Act to deport 137 Venezuelan men it had rounded up in the United States, castigating them as members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Boasberg ruled late last year that the men had been denied due process, and he gave the U.S. government the chance to “propose steps” that would ensure the men had hearings on their habeas corpus claims, and challenge their designation under the Alien Enemies Act.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
“Apparently not interested in participating in this process, the Government’s
Under that law, which dates to 1798 and was originally intended for wartime use, the government moved swiftly to remove alleged “enemy” subjects without traditional hearings. Critics called the application of the wartime statute to migrants unprecedented.
The men were flown to El Salvador and held at CECOT — a facility widely criticized by human rights groups as brutal and inhumane. Later in 2025, many were released from the prison and sent to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange negotiated by U.S. officials.
Attorneys for the migrants — represented by the American Civil Liberties Union — quickly challenged the removals in U.S. federal court, arguing that the deportations violated both domestic due process protections and international legal norms. In December, Boasberg ruled the migrants had been denied due process and ordered the government to propose a plan either to return them to the U.S. or provide fair hearings abroad.
In Thursday’s decision, Boasberg went further, ordering the administration to facilitate the migrants’ return from third countries where they have resettled after leaving Venezuela — and to pay for their travel.
The order specifically applies to those now in third countries who want “boarding letters” and airfare to a U.S. port of entry, where they may be taken into immigration custody to pursue legal claims.
The judge did not extend the return order to those still in Venezuela, citing diplomatic and foreign-policy complications, but he directed the government to explore the feasibility of returning those individuals as well.
Boasberg’s ruling allows the migrants to file supplemental habeas corpus petitions on their arrival to challenge their designations as gang members and the legality of their removals under the Alien Enemies Act.
Government Response and Next Steps
The Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department have signalled they plan to appeal the ruling, arguing that once migrants were removed to El Salvador, U.S. court jurisdiction ended. Administration lawyers also contend that logistical concerns and national security issues complicate large-scale returns.
Lee Gelernt, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, praised the decision as a vital step toward restoring fundamental rights. “These men suffered brutal abuse and torture because the Trump administration treated due process as optional,” Gelernt said, adding that the court had taken “the critical first step” in ensuring fairness.
The case shows ongoing tensions between the executive branch’s aggressive immigration enforcement strategies and the federal judiciary’s role in upholding constitutional protections.
It marks one of the most significant judicial rebukes to date against the administration’s use of historical wartime powers to conduct modern immigration removals.
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar