The federal bench and the Biden-era bureaucracy are locked in another high-stakes fight over immigration and who gets the final say on how America protects its borders. A judge has ordered the administration to provide due process to Venezuelan migrants flown to a Salvadoran prison, and given a tight deadline to explain how it will comply. The case cuts to core questions about custody, executive authority, and how courts should police removal decisions.
In March, hundreds of Venezuelan migrants were flown to CECOT, a Salvadoran maximum-security prison, after the government invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. A federal judge had tried to stop that move, but the flights went ahead within hours. The result was a court finding that the action violated a prior order and denied the migrants basic process protections.
Judge James Boasberg determined the migrants were stripped of notice, the ability to contest removal, and the chance to challenge any alleged gang designation. He told the administration to lay out, by Jan. 5, how it will restore those protections, either by returning people so hearings can occur in the United States or by arranging hearings abroad that meet due process standards. That directive forces the administration to choose between reasserting custody in the U.S. or proving that overseas procedures match constitutional requirements.
Boasberg made a blunt legal finding about the events in March and their aftermath. “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 said Monday. “Our law requires no less.” The judge’s wording leaves little room for equivocation about the court’s view of what happened.
The Justice Department is almost certain to appeal the order, and the fight will move up the ladder quickly. Administration officials have framed prior judicial interference as an obstacle to enforcing immigration policy, arguing that lower courts should not thwart what they view as lawful executive action. That position sets up the predictable appellate fights that follow in these politically charged disputes.
Boasberg also concluded that the U.S. exercised some degree of control over the migrants while they were at CECOT, pointing to an agreement with El Salvador that kept the detainees there for at least a year. That agreement, combined with public statements from senior homeland security officials, persuaded the judge that the facility functioned as an outpost of U.S. custody rather than a wholly foreign detention site.
Several public remarks from DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior officials were cited by the court as evidence that CECOT served as an “extension” of U.S. detention efforts. “These statements strongly undermine the Government’s contention that El Salvador retains complete discretion over what to do with individuals” removed from the U.S., the opinion notes, tying public rhetoric to legal responsibility.
Boasberg warned against a dangerous legal shortcut: if removing people overseas could nullify habeas protections, the Great Writ would be hollowed out. 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,'” the court wrote. That reasoning frames the dispute as one over constitutional guardrails, not just policy expedience.
The litigation timeline has been messy, slowed by appeals, national security claims, and a related contempt inquiry into the initial deportation. Things grew more complicated when many of the migrants were moved in July from CECOT to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange that also returned Americans held there. Those transfers made it hard for lawyers and the court to locate class members and confirm who still wanted to pursue relief.
Legal advocates reported that outreach proved difficult and that some migrants went into hiding. ACLU counsel Lee Gelernt told the court about those obstacles, and the organization later said 137 of the original 252 migrants deported to CECOT still wished to move forward with their due process claims. The tension between enforcement priorities and access to courts is now squarely before appellate judges.
Boasberg has signaled he intends to dig into the circumstances of the March removals and get cooperation from the government. He told the Justice Department in November that he “certainly intends to determine what happened” on the day the emergency order was violated and added that the government “can assist me to whatever degree it wishes.” That invitation sets the stage for continued scrutiny and a likely appellate showdown.
