Listen to the article
The Trump administration has declared it will not comply with a court order requiring due process for 252 Venezuelan migrants who were deported to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador last year under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. This stance sets up what legal experts anticipate will be a contentious legal battle likely headed back to the Supreme Court.
In a filing submitted Monday, Justice Department lawyers argued that the administration is unable to return the migrants who were summarily deported last March. The DOJ rejected the notion that the U.S. could “facilitate” due process proceedings as previously ordered by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, describing such options as either legally impossible or practically unworkable.
The case has emerged as one of the defining court battles of Trump’s second term, testing the administration’s stance against federal courts and exploring the practical limits of judicial authority on immigration policy—one of Trump’s signature issues.
DOJ lawyers cited several reasons for their refusal to comply, including national security concerns and the fragile political situation in Venezuela following the U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro last month during a raid in Caracas. They argued that bringing petitioners back to the U.S. would harm “critical” foreign policy negotiations with Venezuela and carry “profound” national security risks.
“The U.S. lacks custody to conduct the habeas proceedings on foreign soil and doing so would risk injecting an extremely complicated issue into what is already a delicate situation in Venezuela,” the filing stated, adding that it could potentially affect “U.S. efforts toward stabilization and transition that aim to benefit tens of millions of Venezuelans.”
The deportations, carried out despite an emergency court order from Judge Boasberg, have prompted an eleven-month legal battle that reached the Supreme Court in April. The high court previously ruled that individuals removed under the Alien Enemies Act must have the ability to contest their removal and receive meaningful notice before deportation.
Judge Boasberg has spent months attempting to determine the status of the CECOT prison plaintiffs and what ability the U.S. has to facilitate their return or provide due process protections, including the ability to challenge their alleged gang status. His December order required the administration to submit plans to provide due process either by returning the migrants to the U.S. or facilitating hearings abroad.
The DOJ has repeatedly questioned the gang affiliations attributed to many of the deported migrants, raising concerns about the validity of the administration’s security justifications.
Last month, DOJ representatives presented similar arguments before an “en banc” 17-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which convened to weigh the legality of the administration’s use of the centuries-old law. They claimed the U.S. indictment against Maduro “reinforces the Proclamation’s findings that the Maduro regime and TdA have formed a ‘hybrid criminal state’ directed by the regime,” justifying the decision to use the Alien Enemies Act.
ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt countered during that same hearing that the Act does not give the administration “a blank check” for a president to “use his war powers any time he considers it valuable.”
The Justice Department made clear in its latest filing that regardless of Judge Boasberg’s ruling, the administration views the fight as far from over: “If, over defendants’ vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, defendants intend to immediately appeal, and will seek a stay pending appeal from this Court (and, if necessary, from the D.C. Circuit).”
The ongoing legal dispute highlights the tensions between presidential authority on immigration enforcement and judicial oversight, particularly when national security concerns are invoked. As the case continues to unfold, it may establish significant precedents regarding the limits of executive power in immigration matters and the scope of constitutional protections afforded to non-citizens.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
18 Comments
This sets up an important showdown between the executive branch and the courts over immigration policy and due process protections. The DOJ’s stance is quite rigid, but the courts have to uphold the rule of law. Curious to see how this legal battle unfolds.
Agreed, it’s a high-stakes case with major implications. The administration is pushing the boundaries, but the courts must ensure proper procedures and constitutional rights are respected, even for deported migrants.
The DOJ’s refusal to comply with the court order is quite concerning. While national security is important, the administration cannot simply ignore due process protections. This will be a closely watched legal battle with major implications for immigration policy.
Absolutely. Upholding the rule of law and constitutional rights has to be the priority, even in sensitive cases involving national security and foreign policy.
This case really gets to the heart of the ongoing tension between executive power and judicial oversight on immigration. The DOJ is taking a hard line, but the courts have a duty to protect the rights of all individuals, even deported migrants. A very important legal battle ahead.
I agree, this will be a closely watched test case. The administration is pushing the boundaries, but the courts must ensure proper procedures and protections are in place, no matter the national security concerns.
This sets up an important test of executive power vs. judicial oversight on immigration. The administration is taking a hardline stance, but the courts have a duty to protect the rights of even deported migrants. Looking forward to seeing how this case unfolds.
Agreed, it’s a delicate balance. The courts will need to ensure proper procedures are followed while also considering the administration’s national security arguments. Not an easy case to resolve.
The Alien Enemies Act from 1798 is being used to justify summary deportation – that seems like a very expansive interpretation. Curious to see how the courts rule on the government’s ability to bypass due process in this case.
Yes, using such an old law to deny modern due process rights is quite concerning. The courts will have to carefully weigh national security claims against fundamental civil liberties.
Interesting to see the administration trying to leverage an 18th century law to sidestep modern due process requirements. The courts will have their work cut out in balancing these competing legal and policy considerations.
Yes, it’s a creative legal strategy but one that seems to clash with fundamental constitutional principles. The courts will have to carefully scrutinize the administration’s arguments.
Invoking the Alien Enemies Act from over 200 years ago to justify denying due process is a pretty bold legal strategy. The courts will really have to scrutinize the administration’s reasoning and ensure fundamental rights are not trampled, even for deported migrants.
Definitely a creative but concerning approach. The courts will have to weigh national security against civil liberties in a very delicate balancing act. An important case to follow closely.
The DOJ’s refusal to comply with the court order is concerning, even if they have national security and Venezuela-related justifications. Due process is a fundamental right that must be protected, even for deported migrants. This case will be closely watched as it progresses.
Absolutely. While the administration’s arguments around national security and the Venezuela situation merit consideration, the courts have a duty to uphold the rule of law and constitutional rights. It will be an important test case.
Interesting case exploring the limits of judicial authority on immigration policy. The DOJ’s stance on national security and the Venezuela situation raises valid concerns, but it’s crucial that due process rights are protected, even for deported migrants. This will likely be a contentious legal battle ahead.
I agree, the administration’s position on this seems quite rigid. Courts should have some oversight to ensure proper procedures are followed, even in sensitive national security matters.