A federal judge said on Monday that the Supreme Court’s ruling in the case of Salvadoran national Kilmar Abrego Garcia may inform what remedy is required for more than 100 Venezuelans deported under the Alien Enemies Act last spring.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia raised the issue during a hearing in J.G.G. v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s use of the 18th-century wartime statute to deport Venezuelan nationals accused of ties to the Tren de Aragua gang.
“Given what the Supreme Court said in Abrego, if these people were illegally removed … then the remedy has to be the same,” Boasberg said, referring to the high court’s April order requiring the government to facilitate relief for Abrego Garcia, who was previously deported to El Salvador despite an immigration judge’s 2019 order barring deportation to his country of origin.
The case before Boasberg involves 137 Venezuelan men deported in March under the Alien Enemies Act and flown to El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center without advance notice or court hearings. Boasberg has already ruled that their removals were a violation of due process. Monday’s hearing focused on what relief, if any, the court can order after the men were later transferred out of U.S. custody and repatriated to Venezuela in a July prisoner exchange.
Boasberg stressed that any return of previously deported Venezuelans, the bulk of whom have ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, does not mean that they will be released or allowed out of custody.
“And I think the point which I made at the very first hearing in this case is I’ve never said, and the plaintiffs have never said, that they are not deportable,” Boasberg said. “The only question in this whole case is, are they supportable pursuant to the AEA and the proclamation, and were they given due process before they were removed?”
President Donald Trump issued the proclamation on March 15, invoking the Alien Enemies Act and declaring Tren de Aragua a designated foreign terrorist organization, citing what the administration described as an extraordinary threat posed by the Venezuelan gang. Federal officials said the designation authorized the rapid removal of suspected members during what they characterized as a national security emergency.
Following the proclamation, the administration deported hundreds of Venezuelan nationals accused of gang involvement to El Salvador, where they were imprisoned at CECOT, a high-security facility reserved for terrorism suspects. Administration officials have said many of those deported were credibly accused of violent crimes, including murder, robbery, rape, and human trafficking.
In July, Venezuelan detainees held at CECOT were repatriated to Venezuela as part of a broader diplomatic arrangement. They were received by then-President Nicolas Maduro, who has since been removed from power.
The Trump administration has contended that all 137 men at issue in the case were properly designated as members of Tren de Aragua and therefore lawfully removed under the wartime statute. Attorneys for the migrants dispute that claim, arguing that some of the men contest the designation and were never given a meaningful opportunity to challenge the government’s evidence before being deported.
Justice Department lawyers argued on Monday that the court lacks jurisdiction to compel any remedy because the men are no longer in U.S. custody. They rejected proposals for remote hearings, paper-only adjudications, or court-facilitated returns, warning that any such order would intrude on executive authority and trigger an immediate appeal.
“If, over Defendants’ vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, Defendants intend to immediately appeal,” the government warned in court filings, language that drew a pointed response from the bench.
“I’m used to that tone in this case, unfortunately,” Boasberg said in response to an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, who said the end of the DOJ’s recent brief ended with a veiled threat.
Representing the migrants, the ACLU argued that the administration is attempting to create a legal dead end by removing people before they can challenge their deportations and then saying courts have no power to act afterward.
Boasberg also pressed the parties on whether the court should first rule on the legality of Trump’s Alien Enemies Act proclamation, a decision that could eliminate the need for individualized determinations, or proceed case by case. Plaintiffs’ counsel agreed that invalidating the proclamation could resolve the dispute more cleanly but warned that appeals could prolong the ordeal for men who deny gang affiliation, given that the administration’s use of the wartime statute is being litigated across various jurisdictions in the country.
The March flights to CECOT included detainees beyond the 137 Venezuelans deported under the Alien Enemies Act. The same aircraft also carried 101 Venezuelans removed under standard immigration law and 23 Salvadorans accused of MS-13 membership, including Abrego Garcia, whose deportation the government later acknowledged was erroneous.
TRUMP ADMINISTRATION FACES COURT TEST OVER VENEZUELANS FLOWN TO EL SALVADOR
Abrego Garcia, whose case became a crucial reference point in Monday’s hearing, fled El Salvador as a teenager, was granted limited protection from being returned there by an immigration judge in 2019, and lived in Maryland under federal supervision before being detained by ICE in March and deported to CECOT. The Supreme Court later ordered the Trump administration to facilitate relief, and Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States, where he has since been entangled in parallel civil, criminal, and immigration proceedings.
Boasberg adjourned the hearing without ruling, saying he would try to issue a decision by next week.