Federal Judge Orders Return of Migrant Class Deported Under Trump Administration in March

A federal judge has given the Trump administration two weeks to develop a plan ensuring due process for Venezuelan migrants who were deported to El Salvador in March, setting up another significant conflict between the White House and federal courts.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled Monday that the administration must submit by January 5 its strategy to provide due process protections to the migrants, who were sent to CECOT, a Salvadoran maximum-security prison. The judge determined the Trump administration’s actions were illegal and violated court orders, depriving the migrants of their constitutional rights.

“On the merits, the Court concludes that this class was denied their due-process rights and will thus require the Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing,” Boasberg wrote. “Our law requires no less.”

The administration has two options to satisfy the court’s requirements: either return the migrants to the United States for in-person hearings or create a system to conduct hearings abroad that meet due process standards. The Justice Department is expected to appeal the ruling.

The case began 10 months ago when the Trump administration attempted to use the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a wartime immigration law, to quickly deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants. Judge Boasberg had initially ordered a halt to these deportations, but the flights landed in El Salvador hours after his emergency order was issued.

In his ruling, Boasberg cited evidence suggesting the U.S. maintained a level of control over the migrants at CECOT, pointing to an agreement between the U.S. and El Salvador to house the migrants for at least one year. He also referenced public statements from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other DHS officials that characterized CECOT as an “extension” of U.S. detention facilities.

The judge rejected the government’s argument that it had no responsibility for the migrants once they were in El Salvador, writing that if “secretly spiriting individuals to another country were enough to neuter the Great Writ, then the Government could ‘snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.'”

Complicating the case further, the CECOT migrants were moved again in July from El Salvador to Venezuela as part of a broader prisoner exchange that secured the return of at least 10 Americans detained in Venezuela. This transfer made it difficult to contact the migrants, many of whom had originally fled Venezuela and gone into hiding.

According to the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the plaintiffs, 137 of the 252 Venezuelan migrants deported in March still wish to proceed with their due process cases.

The ruling adds to a growing list of judicial checks on Trump administration policies. Administration officials have criticized Boasberg and other judges who have blocked executive actions as “rogue, activist” judges overstepping their authority. They argue that lower court judges shouldn’t have the power to impede what they consider lawful presidential actions.

Boasberg, who serves as chief judge for the U.S. District Court, has remained steadfast in his approach. In November, he told the Justice Department he “certainly intends to determine what happened” on the day the government violated his emergency order to halt the deportations.

This case represents one of several high-profile legal battles between the Trump administration and federal courts over immigration policy. The administration has consistently pushed for expanded executive authority in immigration enforcement, while judges have insisted on constitutional protections for all persons within U.S. jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status.

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the limits of executive power in immigration enforcement and the constitutional rights afforded to migrants facing deportation.