J.G.G. v. Trump

J.G.G. v. Trump
CourtUnited States District Court for the District of Columbia
Full case name J.G.G. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
Docket nos.25-cv-00766-JEB
DefendantsDonald J. Trump, et al.
PlaintiffsJ.G.G., et al.
Court membership
Judge sittingJames Boasberg

J.G.G. v. Donald J. Trump is the name of a class action and habeas corpus lawsuit by five Venezuelan men in immigration custody, threatened with imminent removal under the expected proclamation of US president Donald Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA).

The suit was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward on March 15, 2025. The same day, Trump announced that the Venezuelan criminal gang Tren de Aragua was conducting "irregular warfare" against the United States and that members in the United States would be deported under the AEA. The Trump administration quickly began the process of deporting Venezuelans allegedly affiliated with this gang on flights to El Salvador.

While the deportation flights were en route, James Boasberg, chief judge of the US District Court for the District of Columbia was assigned to the case. He issued an order certifying Venezuelan migrants in the US as members of a class and temporarily enjoining their removal from the US. Although Boasberg specifically ordered that any planes in the air carrying those covered by his order be turned back and those individuals returned to the US, the Trump administration allowed the flights to proceed, potentially violating the court order. Over 260 men were flown to El Salvador, including 137 Venezuelans deported under the AEA. The deportees were taken into custody and sent to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT). The Trump administration subsequently argued in court that the order did not apply because the flights were over international waters. Critics of the government alleged it was improperly using a wartime authority to carry out its immigration policies without due process. The Trump administration appealed the temporary restraining order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, and after that court denied the appeal, the administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, which vacated Boasberg's temporary restraining order and ruled that any challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which requires that the petition be filed in the district where a petitioner is detained, and that intended deportees must be given sufficient time to petition for a writ.

The ACLU then started filing cases in various districts where Venezuelans were in immigration detention and at risk of being deported under the AEA. However, some legal issues remained in Boasberg's court, and on April 16, he ruled that there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt of court for not having turned the planes around after his March 15 order. The DOJ appealed the ruling to the court of appeals.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the ACLU and Democracy Forward also amended their complaint, asking Boasberg to certify two classes, one of Venezuelans sent to CECOT under the AEA, and another of Venezuelans currently imprisoned in the US and alleged to be members of Tren de Aragua. On June 4, Boasberg certified the first class, concluding that they had been deprived of their right to due process and ordering the Trump administration to enable them to bring habeas corpus challenges to their removal. The DOJ again appealed the ruling to the court of appeals.

Background

Trump's deportation plans and Tren de Aragua

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised to deport foreign gang members in what would be called "Operation Aurora", named after Aurora, Colorado. In the previous 18 months, Aurora and the surrounding Denver metropolitan area saw the arrival of over 50,000 Venezuelan during the Venezuelan refugee crisis, and local police attributed crimes such as kidnapping, shooting, and prostitution to members of the Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua. Trump's campaign alleged that the gang had taken over Aurora, and used it to justify his broad immigration policies.[1]

Trump repeated this intention in his inaugural address on January 20, 2025,[2] and signed executive order 14157 designating transnational gangs such as Tren de Aragua as foreign terrorist organizations.[3] During a diplomatic mission to central America, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio met with Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele, who offered to imprison those who had been convicted of crimes in the US at CECOT, whether those people be US citizens or foreign nationals.[4]

Alien Enemies Act

Further information: Alien and Sedition Acts

During his presidential campaign, Trump also repeatedly stated that if reelected, he would use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport undocumented immigrants in the United States who had criminal records.[5][6] A relevant part of the Alien Enemies Act says:[7]

Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies.

The act has been used by three previous presidents, but only in wartime: by James Madison against British immigrants during the War of 1812, by Woodrow Wilson against German immigrants in World War I, and by Franklin Roosevelt against Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants in World War II.[8] A declared war requires an act of Congress; however, a determination of invasion or predatory incursion by a foreign nation does not.[9]

Trump's deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, had previously advocated for use of the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). In a September 2023 podcast interview with Charlie Kirk, Miller said that the AEA "allows you to instantaneously remove any noncitizen foreigner from an invading country", which "allows you to suspend the due process that normally applies to a removal proceeding."[10]

Intelligence community assessments

Officials familiar with the matter told the New York Times that a US intelligence community assessment from late February 2025 concluded with a moderate level of confidence that the Venezuelan government was not controlling Tren de Aragua (TDA), and that the gang was not acting on government orders and lacked the resources and organization to do so.[11] In March, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard wrote that her office "fully supports the assessment that the foreign terrorist organization, Tren De Aragua, is acting with the support of the Maduro Regime, and thus subject to arrest, detention and removal as alien enemies of the United States."[12] However, the Freedom of the Press Foundation filed a records request, and obtained a declassified April memo from the National Intelligence Council (NIC) that stated "while Venezuela's permissive environment enables TDA to operate, the Maduro regime probably does not have a policy of cooperating with TDA and is not directing TDA movement to and operations in the United States."[13] A week later, Gabbard fired the NIC's acting chair, Michael Collins, and his deputy, Maria Langan-Riekhof, with a spokesperson for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence saying that the firings were related to efforts "to end the weaponization and politicization of the Intelligence Community".[14]

Due process

Main article: Procedural due process

A due process clause is found in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which prohibits the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".[15] In the context of removal pursuant to US immigration and nationality law, this is limited to procedural due process, as the substance of such law is generally immune to judicial review.[16][17][18] Removal is an administrative matter, so the "provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application".[19][20] Although, procedural due process requires government officials at least give a person proper notice and an opportunity to be heard before depriving that person of their life, liberty, or property.[21][22]: 657 

In Reno v. Flores, former Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia wrote "It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law in deportation proceedings."[23]

Initial timeline

Further information: March 2025 American deportations of Venezuelans

On Friday, March 14, 2025, Trump signed presidential proclamation 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act[24][25] and asserting that Tren de Aragua, a criminal organization from Venezuela, had invaded the United States.[26] The White House did not announce that the proclamation had been signed until the afternoon of the next day.[27]

Very early on Saturday, March 15, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Democracy Forward filed a class action suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of five Venezuelan men held in immigration detention.[28] The ACLU stated later that morning that it filed the suit, J.G.G. v. Trump, in anticipation that Trump would be invoking the act,[29] as news media had previously reported that Trump was expected to do so.[30] The suit was assigned to judge James Boasberg.[28] That morning, noting the exigent circumstances, he approved a temporary restraining order for the five plaintiffs, and he ordered a 5 p.m. hearing to determine whether he would certify the class in the class action.[31]

In the mid-afternoon, detainees were taken from El Valle detention center in Raymondville, Texas, to buses.[28] Subsequently, the White House announced that Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act, posting a copy of the proclamation to its website.[27]

At 5 p.m., Boasberg began the court hearing to determine whether to certify the class and grant a temporary restraining order for the class.[31] Boasberg asked deputy assistant attorney general Drew Ensign if the Trump administration was planning to carry out deportations using the Alien Enemies Act in the next 48 hours. Ensign replied that he did not know, and Boasberg gave Ensign around 40 minutes to find out, pausing the hearing at 5:22 p.m.[31] Meanwhile, at Harlingen, Texas, two planes with Venezuelan deportees took off, one at 5:26 p.m. and the other at 5:44 p.m.[24] Boasberg resumed the hearing around 5:55 p.m., with Ensign saying that he still had no specific information about the Trump administration's plans.[31]

At 6:48 p.m., having stated that he would certify the class and grant a temporary restraining order, Boasberg told the DOJ lawyers "You shall inform your clients of this immediately, and that any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States". The New York Times reports that at this point, "one of the planes was over Mexico; a second was over the Gulf of Mexico ... and a third had not yet taken off."[24] Though Boasberg specifically ordered that any planes in the air carrying those covered by his order be turned back and those individuals returned to the US, the Trump administration allowed the flights to proceed, possibly violating the verbal court order.[32][33] The hearing ended, and the court posted Boasberg's written order, certifying the class and granting a temporary restraining order for the class.[27]

At 7:36 p.m., ten minutes after Boasberg's written order was published, a third deportation flight departed from Harlingen.[24] An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) official later told the court that none of the deportees on this third flight were deported under the Alien Enemies Act.[24]

Later that evening, each of the three planes landed at Soto Cano air base in Comayagua, Honduras, and after a period of time, each left Honduras, landing in San Salvador, El Salvador, in the early hours of the morning of March 16.[24] Taken together, the three flights took over 260 migrants to El Salvador, where they were taken into custody at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT).[31] Later that morning, Bukele tweeted that 238 of the alleged gang members are associated with Tren de Aragua and 23 with MS-13.[34]

On March 15, the DOJ filed appeals with the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking it to block both of Boasberg's temporary restraining orders, one for the five men who filed suit, and a second for the larger class of Venezuelans that the Trump administration wished to deport under the Alien Enemies Act.[35] The court of appeals consolidated the two cases, and on March 26, it denied the emergency motion for a stay.[36]

District court

On March 28, Boasberg extended his initial temporary restraining order in order to provide time for a hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction.[37]

Use of the Alien Enemies Act and due process

In the March 15 hearing, ACLU lawyers argued that foreign nationals are entitled to due process under the US constitution.[38]

In a March 21 hearing, Boasberg said that using the Alien Enemies Act this way is "incredibly troublesome and problematic",[38] adding that it appeared the proclamation had been "signed in the dark" of night because the administration anticipated that it was problematic.[39]

On March 28, Boasberg extended the original temporary restraining order until at least April 12. He also scheduled a hearing for April to discuss a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.[40]

The government filed a motion to vacate the temporary restraining order and remove Boasberg from the case.[41] On March 24, Boasberg denied the Trump administration's request to vacate the order blocking the Trump administration from deporting Venezuelan migrants with the invocation of the wartime powers. He also ruled that those who have been deported or might be deported under the Alien Enemies Act must be allowed to challenge their removal, including whether they were actually members of Tren de Aragua.[42][43]

Neither the US nor Salvadoran governments offered any details or evidence to support their claims that those deported had been charged with any crimes or were affiliated with any gang.[44] A source in the State Department, who "requested anonymity, fearing retribution", said that the detainees might never go to trial and could die in prison.[45] ICE official Robert Cerna acknowledged to the court on March 17 that "many" of the alleged Tren de Aragua gang members the Trump administration deported to El Salvador "under the AEA do not have criminal records in the United States", then argued that "the lack of specific information about each individual actually highlights the risk they pose", as it "demonstrates that they are terrorists with regard to whom we lack a complete profile."[46][47]

Lawyers and family members of the deported claim that they were deported for having common, everyday, tattoos.[48] In a court filing, the ACLU shared what they believe to be a guide that ICE uses to determine who is and isn't a gang member based on a points system.[49]

Although Boasberg verbally ordered the deportation flights "to be returned to the United States" and that this order be "complied with immediately", the Trump administration completed the March 15 deportations anyway. Axios reported one Trump administration official acknowledging that the Trump administration had carried out the deportations "after a discussion about how far the judge's ruling can go under the circumstances and over international waters and, on advice of counsel", while a second Trump administration official commented: "They were already outside of US airspace. We believe the order [by the judge] is not applicable".[50]

The next morning, the president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, responded to Boasberg's initial order with "Oopsie…too late" and a crying-with-laughter emoji in a post on X.[51] Secretary of State Marco Rubio reposted Bukele's message,[52] as did White House communications director Steven Cheung, who added the commentary: "Boom!"[53] That day, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that Boasberg's order "had no lawful basis" and was given after the accused "had already been removed from U.S. territory", while further stating: "A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier".[50]

On March 17, White House Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Tom Homan told Fox News, "I don't care what the judges think," and said he would continue his department's operations against migrants.[54] After a hearing in which government attorneys did not answer questions about the flights and other matters, Boasberg ordered the government to provide information, which could be filed under seal, including sworn declarations about the flights and its position on whether and how it would respond to his questions.[55]

Attorney general Pam Bondi and other Department of Justice (DOJ) officials argued in a March 17 legal filing that "an oral directive is not enforceable as an injunction".[56][57] Bondi and other DOJ officials then submitted a March 18 legal filing stating that regarding certain details about the deportation flights requested by Boasberg, "there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate".[58]

In its filing on March 19, the government argued that the executive branch has an "absolute and unreviewable" authority over national security and foreign policy concerns.[31] Boasberg stated that the government had "evaded its obligations" in answering his questions and gave the DOJ two days to respond.[59] That same day in a media interview, Bondi said that Boasberg "has no right to ask those questions" regarding details about the deportation flights, and has "no power" to order the Trump administration to stop the deportation flights, as Bondi declared that judges are "meddling in our government".[60]

The next day, the judge called the government's response "woefully insufficient" and again ordered it to provide information and explain its reasons for claiming its actions did not violate the original order.[33][61] In a March 21 hearing, the judge expressed frustration with the government's lack of cooperation in answering questions about the government's not having returned the flights with the deportees and stated "I will get to the bottom of whether they violated my order and who ordered this."[62]

On March 24, invoking the state secrets privilege, the government stated it would decline to respond further to the court order to provide more information about the flights.[63][64]

On June 24, Erez Reuveni, a former DOJ lawyer, filed a whistleblower report alleging that Emil Bove, the acting Deputy Attorney General, met with a small group of lawyers on March 14 and told them Trump would be invoking the AEA, flights were planned for that weekend, and if a court order attempted to prevent the flights, the DOJ "would need to consider telling the courts 'fuck you' and ignore any such order". Drew Ensign was among the lawyers in the meeting, and Reuveni alleged that Ensign falsely told Boasberg that he did not know whether the Trump administration was planning deportations under the AEA in the next 48 hours. Reuveni said he had listened to the March 15 court proceedings on the phone, and as soon as Boasberg certified the class and ordered that planes not take off or immediately return if already in flight, Reuveni emailed the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to alert them that "no one subject to A.E.A. in our custody can be removed" and "anyone in the air should be returned". He further alleged that in an email, DOJ lawyer Yaakov Roth said Bove told the DHS that despite Boasberg's order, the planes did not need to turn around because they were already out of US airspace.[65]

Contempt Proceedings

During a hearing on April 3, Boasberg said that the Trump administration may have "acted in bad faith" in rushing the deportations and that he was considering initiating contempt proceedings.[66]

On April 16, Boasberg determined that there was probable cause to hold the Trump administration in criminal contempt for violating his order that temporarily halted deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. Despite Boasberg's directive to return planes carrying deportees, the administration proceeded with the deportations, sending over 260 individuals to El Salvador. Boasberg criticized the administration's "willful disobedience" and warned that such actions could undermine the Constitution. He set a deadline of April 23 for the administration to either take custody of the deportees or identify the officials responsible for the violations. The administration contended that the order to return the planes was not part of a written directive and indicated plans to appeal. Boasberg emphasized that constitutional responsibilities apply to all branches, including the executive.[67][68] He stated that if officials needed to be prosecuted for contempt, and the DOJ was unwilling to do so, he would appoint a lawyer to do this.[69] The Trump administration appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which stayed Boasberg's April 16 order pending resolution of the appeal.[70]

Amended complaint

On April 24, 2025, the ACLU and Democracy Forward filed an amended complaint in which they sought to certify two additional classes of petitioners, one consisting of Venezuelans who had already been transferred to CECOT under the AEA, and a second consisting of Venezuelan men who are currently imprisoned in the US rather than in immigration detention and who are alleged by the Trump administration to be members of Tren de Aragua.[70]

On June 4, Boasberg certified the class of the 137 Venezuelans who had been sent to CECOT under the AEA, concluding that they had been deprived of their right to due process and must now be given the ability to bring habeas corpus challenges to their removal, and giving the government until June 11 to propose how it would comply. He noted that although the government alleges they are all members of Tren de Aragua, investigations carried out by the media after the men were deported suggest that many "have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations." He also ruled he did not have jurisdiction over the men who are imprisoned in the US, and so rejected that class certification.[71] A White House press secretary called Boasberg's ruling "a direct threat to the safety of the American people", and said he lacked authority to require the government to provide an opportunity for habeas corpus challenges, as the issue involves immigration and national security, and the authority for those lies in the executive branch.[72] On June 10, the government again appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which stayed Boasberg's order.[73]

Appeals court

J.G.G. v. Donald Trump
CourtD.C. Cir.
Full case name J.G.G. et al. v. Donald J. Trump et al.
Docket nos.25-5067
Case history
Appealed fromD.D.C.
Court membership
Judges sittingKaren Henderson, Patricia Millett, Justin Walker

Initial appeal

The DOJ appealed Boasberg's temporary restraining orders to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, asking it to block them. The case was assigned to judges Karen Henderson, Patricia Millett, and Justin Walker.[74] On March 24, the three-judge panel heard arguments in the case.[42] During the hearing, judge Millett noted that the deportees were given no opportunity to challenge their removal and said "Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act."[42] Two days later, the court denied the appeal in a 2-1 ruling.[75] Henderson and Millett wrote concurring statements, and Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented.[76]

In Ludecke v. Watkins, the US Supreme Court ruled that the question of whether someone alleged to be deportable under the Alien Enemies Act "is in fact an alien enemy ... may also be reviewed by the courts".[77]

Second appeal

On April 18, the DOJ appealed Boasberg's finding of probable cause for contempt of court, and later that day, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit placed an administrative stay on the ruling.[78]

Third appeal

On June 10, the DOJ appealed Boasberg's order that the administration propose a means of providing due process to the men in CECOT who had been deported under the AEA, and later that day, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit placed an administrative stay on the ruling.[73]

Supreme Court

Trump v. J.G.G.
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided April 7, 2025
Full case nameDonald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al. v. J.G.G., et al.
Docket no.24A931
Holding
The temporary restraining orders were vacated, the actions must be brought in the districts where the prisoners are detained, and the intended deportees must be notified in time that they can petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Clarence Thomas · Samuel Alito
Sonia Sotomayor · Elena Kagan
Neil Gorsuch · Brett Kavanaugh
Amy Coney Barrett · Ketanji Brown Jackson
Case opinions
Per curiam
ConcurrenceKavanaugh
DissentSotomayor, joined by Kagan, Jackson; Barrett (Part II and Part III.B)
DissentJackson

On March 28, 2025, the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal with the US Supreme Court, asking it to vacate Boasberg's temporary restraining orders and to immediately allow the administration to resume deportations under the Alien Enemies Act while it considered the request to vacate.[79] On April 7, in a per curiam decision, the court vacated Boasberg's orders, stating that any challenges to removal under the AEA must be brought as a habeas corpus petition, which requires that the petition be filed in the district where a petitioner is detained, and since the petitioners were detained in Texas, their petition in the District of Columbia had been filed in the wrong jurisdiction.[80] The court did not "reach" whether the use of the AEA to deport the men was constitutional, nor whether it applied to the plaintiffs.[80] It added that the government had to give anyone it sought to deport under the AEA enough notice that they could file habeas complaints challenging their removal.[81] Justice Kavanaugh wrote a separate concurring opinion. Justice Sotomayor wrote a dissent, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, and joined in part by Justice Barrett. Justice Jackson also wrote her own dissent.[82]

Subsequent court challenges in other districts

See also: W.M.M. v. Trump

In light of the Supreme Court's ruling that challenges must be brought as habeas corpus petitions filed in the district where a petitioner is detained, new class petitions for writs of habeas corpus were filed by the ACLU. One, J.A.V. v. Trump, was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where the case was assigned to Judge Fernando Rodriguez Jr., and a second, G.F.F. v. Trump, was filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the case was assigned to Judge Alvin Hellerstein.[83][84] On April 9, 2025, both judges quickly signed temporary restraining orders. Judge Rodriguez enjoined the administration from deporting anyone from the El Valle Detention Center under the AEA, and from moving anyone covered by the AEA to another detention facility. Judge Hellerstein's order was similar, but applied to anyone in detention in the Southern District of New York.[84] Hellerstein extended his temporary restraining order as he considered whether to grant a preliminary injunction, saying in a hearing that Trump's invocation of the AEA "is contrary to law".[85]

On May 1, Rodriguez certified the class in J.A.V. v. Trump, and granted a permanent injunction preventing the administration from deporting anyone in the Southern District of Texas under the AEA. Rodriguez rejected the government's argument that he lacked the authority to rule on the issue. He wrote that in most legal records, "the use of 'invasion' and 'predatory incursion' referred to an attack by military forces", and he rejected Trump's use of these terms in his presidential proclamation invoking the AEA.[86] Rodriguez added that his order did not prevent the government from deporting people under the Immigration and Naturalization Act.[87]

On May 6, Hellerstein also granted a preliminary injunction, and ruled that Trump's invocation of the AEA was invalid. He wrote that neither Venezuelan refugees nor members of the Tren de Aragua "are engaged in an 'invasion' or 'predatory incursion'", as they are not involved in efforts to occupy or ravage US territory, or to prevent US jurisdiction. Hellerstein further noted that even if potential deportees are criminals, the government's notice was nothing but a "bare bones form letter", without the evidence that the government was using to allege Tren de Aragua membership, and he concluded that "Without such proof, petitioners are subject to removal by the executive's dictate alone, in contravention of the AEA and the constitutional requirements of due process."[13]

Another suit, D.B.U. v. Trump, was filed in the US District Court for the District of Colorado and assigned to Judge Charlotte Sweeney, who ordered that the men not be removed from the country while the case proceeded.[88] On April 22, Sweeney granted a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing the deportation of aliens in Colorado under the AEA, and requiring that anyone subject to removal under the AEA receive at least three weeks' notice before deportation.[89] The government then asked the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the TRO pending appeal, but on April 29, the court denied the request.[90] On May 6, Sweeney certified the class and granted a preliminary injunction. She wrote that "Federal courts and judicial review are a feature—not a defect—of this Nation’s constitutional structure", and she found it staggering that the government would contend that the courts have no role in assessing whether the AEA was properly invoked.[91]

On April 19, 2025, the Supreme Court enjoined the removal of detainees from an immigration detention center in Anson, Texas in an unsigned order in A.A.R.P. v. Trump (also known as W.M.M. v. Trump), after Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit declined to issue a temporary restraining order.[92][93] On May 9, Hendrix ruled against certifying the class on the basis that the petitioners were too dissimilar from one another. However, he stayed his ruling pending further court action.[94] On May 16, the Supreme Court issued an injunction, ruling that the government's 24 hours notice to intended deportees was insufficient to protect their due process rights and sending the case back to the Fifth Circuit to determine what would constitute sufficient notice.[95]

Another suit, A.S.R. v. Trump, was filed on April 15 in the US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.[96] The case was assigned to Judge Stephanie Haines, and on May 13, she became the first judge to determine that Trump's invocation of the AEA was consistent with the law. She also ruled that anyone the Trump administration wished to deport under the AEA proclamation had to be given at least 21 days’ notice.[97]

Y.A.P.A. v. Trump was filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on April 30, and assigned to Judge Clay Land, who granted a preliminary injunction on May 21. In his ruling, he stated that the government had shown that it intended "to test the constitutional limits of Executive power", and it was his job "to assure that unrestrained zeal does not include gaming the system in a manner that deprives an individual of constitutional protections".[98]

On May 10, M.A.P.S. v. Garite was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. The case was assigned to Judge David Briones, and on May 22, he certified the class. Briones wrote that neither the Supreme Court nor the Fifth Circuit provide "clear guidance ... on class actions in habeas corpus proceedings", but that the All Writs Act gives him authority to grant class status.[99] The lead plaintiff, M.A.P.S., entered the country legally and was granted temporary protected status, but was later arrested and alleged to be a Tren de Aragua member on the basis of her tattoos.[100] On June 9, Briones ruled that Trump had invoked the AEA unlawfully, as the criminal activities of the Tren de Aragua do not constitute an invasion or predatory incursion, and that the people whom the administration wishes to deport must be given due process, including at least 30 days notice. Briones further prohibited the administration from moving any member of the class to another jurisdiction.[101]

Trump having signed the presidential proclamation

In an interview on March 21, in response to a question about Boasberg describing the proclamation invoking the AEA as having been "signed in the dark", Trump responded: "I don't know when it was signed, because I didn't sign it ... Other people handled it, but Marco Rubio has done a great job and he wanted them out and we go along with that."[102] The White House then stated that Trump "was obviously referring to the original Alien Enemies Act that was signed back in 1798", and that Trump had signed the March 14 proclamation invoking the Alien Enemies Act.[103]

Calls for impeaching the district court judge

In the week of March 17, Trump said that Boasberg was a "Radical Left Lunatic Judge" and called for his impeachment. CNN said that many of his rulings in the past have aligned with Trump's interests, including giving lenient sentences to January 6 rioters, and quoted one former DOJ prosecutor as saying "Boasberg is the opposite of a radical judge". On March 18, Representative Brandon Gill of Texas filed articles of impeachment against Boasberg alleging "abuse of power".[104] US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a "rare public rebuke" saying that the appeals process, not impeachment, was the way to respond to an unfavorable ruling.[33][105]

Identifying deportees

As of March 21, the government had not provided a list of names to news outlets or affected families.[45] However, on March 20, CBS News published 238 names from an internal government document that it had obtained.[106] CBS also established that at least one of those deported had no criminal record.[107] A later 60 Minutes investigation failed to find any US or foreign criminal charges against 179 of those deported, only finding serious criminal charges against about a dozen.[108]

References

  1. ^ Noriega, David; Ford, Sarah (March 18, 2025). "The truth about Tren de Aragua, the gang at the center of Trump's immigration crackdown". NBC News. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
  2. ^ Wolf, Zachary B.; Merrill, Curt (January 20, 2025). "Donald Trump's second inaugural speech, annotated and fact checked". CNN. Archived from the original on March 14, 2025. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  3. ^ Lotz, Avery (January 21, 2025). "Executive order list: What executive orders did President Trump sign and what to know". Axios. Retrieved January 22, 2025.
  4. ^ Buschschlüter, Vanessa; Williams, Nathan (February 4, 2025). "El Salvador offers to take in US criminals and migrants". BBC News. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  5. ^ Treisman, Rachel (October 19, 2024). "Trump is promising deportations under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. What is it?". NPR. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  6. ^ Holland, Steve; Mason, Jeff; Oliphant, James (October 28, 2024). "Trump headlines Madison Square Garden rally after vulgar, racist remarks from allies". Reuters. Archived from the original on February 14, 2025. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  7. ^ "50 USC Ch. 3: Alien Enemies". United States Code. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  8. ^ Balk, Tim (March 21, 2025). "The Alien Enemies Act, Used by Trump to Deport Venezuelans, Has Long Been Contentious". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  9. ^ Yon Ebright, Katherine (October 9, 2024). "The Alien Enemies Act, Explained". Brennan Center for Justice. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  10. ^ Kanno-Youngs, Zolan; Aleaziz, Hamed; Feuer, Alan; Barrett, Devlin; Turkewitz, Julie; Swan, Jonathan; Haberman, Maggie; Correal, Annie (April 30, 2025). "Behind Trump's Deal to Deport Venezuelans to El Salvador's Most Feared Prison". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  11. ^ Savage, Charlie; Barnes, Julian E. (March 20, 2025). "Intelligence Assessment Said to Contradict Trump on Venezuelan Gang". New York Times. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 25, 2025.
  12. ^ Klepper, David (May 6, 2025). "Declassified intelligence memo contradicts Trump's claims linking gang to Venezuelan government". AP News. Retrieved May 7, 2025.
  13. ^ a b Quinn, Melissa (May 6, 2025). "Second judge blocks Trump administration's use of Alien Enemies Act to remove certain migrants". CBS News. Retrieved May 6, 2025.
  14. ^ Strobel, Warren P. (May 14, 2025). "Gabbard fires leaders of intelligence group that wrote Venezuela assessment". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  15. ^ "The Bill of Rights: A Brief History". ACLU. March 4, 2002. Archived from the original on August 30, 2016. Retrieved April 21, 2015.
  16. ^ Johnson, Kevin (February 18, 2015). "Argument preview: The doctrine of consular non-reviewability historical relic or good law?". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
  17. ^ Vile, John (January 1, 2009). "Harisiades v. Shaughnessy (1952)". The Free Speech Center. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
  18. ^ Harisiades v. Shaughnessy, 342 U.S. 580, 589–590 (1952) ("It is pertinent to observe that any policy toward aliens is vitally and intricately interwoven with contemporaneous policies in regard to the conduct of foreign relations, the war power, and the maintenance of a republican form of government. Such matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference".).
  19. ^ Hester, Torrie (October 1, 2010). "'Protection, Not Punishment': Legislative and Judicial Formation of U.S. Deportation Policy, 1882–1904". Journal of American Ethnic History. 30 (1): 11–36. doi:10.5406/jamerethnhist.30.1.0011. ISSN 0278-5927.
  20. ^ Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 US 698, 730 (1893) (“The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime...It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which...his continuing to reside here shall depend....the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application.").
  21. ^ "Procedural Due Process: What individual interests are protected? What process must government provide?". University of Missouri-Kansas City. Retrieved April 28, 2025.
  22. ^ Glicksman, Robert L.; Levy, Richard E. (2010). Administrative Law: Agency Action in Legal Context. Foundation Press. ISBN 9781599416106.
  23. ^ "What constitutional rights do undocumented immigrants have?". PBS News. June 25, 2018. Retrieved May 14, 2025.
  24. ^ a b c d e f Broadwater, Luke; Sun, Albert; Correal, Annie (March 18, 2025). "A Judge Ordered Deportation Planes to Turn Around. The White House Didn't Listen". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 23, 2025. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  25. ^ "Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua". Federal Register. March 20, 2025. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  26. ^ Ramirez Uribe, Maria (March 19, 2025). "Is Tren de Aragua invading the US, as Trump says?". PolitiFact. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  27. ^ a b c Isacson, Adam (March 21, 2025). "Invocation of Alien Enemies Act raises due process, democracy, and foreign relations concerns". Washington Office on Latin America. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  28. ^ a b c Ward, Myah; Cheney, Kyle; Gerstein, Josh (March 15, 2025). "Federal judge halts deportations after Trump invokes Alien Enemies Act". Politico. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  29. ^ "ACLU and Democracy Forward Sue Trump Administration Over Expected Invocation of Alien Enemies Act". American Civil Liberties Union. March 15, 2025. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  30. ^ Alvarez, Priscilla; Hansler, Jennifer; Treene, Alayna (March 13, 2025). "Trump expected to invoke wartime authority to speed up mass deportation effort in coming days". CNN. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  31. ^ a b c d e f Kunzelman, Michael; Cano, Regina Garcia (March 18, 2025). "A timeline of the legal wrangling and deportation flights after Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act". AP News. Associated Press. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  32. ^ Goodman, Ryan (March 16, 2025). "Timeline of US Flight to El Salvador and Judge's Order to Turn Around Planes". Just Security. Retrieved March 16, 2025.
  33. ^ a b c Feuer, Alan (March 20, 2025). "Administration's Details on Deportation Flights 'Woefully Insufficient,' Judge Says". New York Times. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  34. ^ Garrett, Luke (March 16, 2025). "U.S. deports hundreds of Venezuelans to El Salvador, despite court order". NPR. Retrieved March 23, 2025.
  35. ^ Geidner, Chris. "Court blocks deportations hours after Trump says he invoked Alien Enemies Act". LawDork. Retrieved March 23, 2025.
  36. ^ "Order" (PDF). storage.courtlistener.com. March 26, 2025. Retrieved March 26, 2025.
  37. ^ Dwyer, Devin; Faulders, Katherine; Charalambous, Peter (March 28, 2025). "Administration asks Supreme Court to lift judge's block on deportations under Alien Enemies Act". ABC News. Retrieved March 28, 2025.
  38. ^ a b Bustillo, Ximena; Garsd, Jasmine (March 21, 2025). "Judge Boasberg voices skepticism over use of Alien Enemies Act deportations". NPR. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  39. ^ Foster-Frau, Silvia; Jouvenal, Justin (March 21, 2025). "Judge calls Trump's use of Alien Enemies Act 'problematic and concerning'". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  40. ^ "Administration asks Supreme Court to lift judge's block on deportations under Alien Enemies Act". ABC News.
  41. ^ Lambe, Jerry (March 17, 2025). "'Flagrantly improper': Trump admin wants judge tossed after he orders emergency hearing over alleged 'blatant violation' of his court order". Law & Crime. Archived from the original on March 22, 2025. Retrieved March 17, 2025.
  42. ^ a b c Charalambous, Peter; Faulders, Katherine; Mallin, Alexander; Kim, Soo Rin. "'Nazis got better treatment,' judge says of Trump administration's Alien Enemies Act deportations". ABC News. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  43. ^ Halpert, Madeline (March 24, 2025). "Judge: US treated Nazis better than Venezuelan migrants who were deported". BBC News. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  44. ^ Helmore, Edward; Phillips, Tom (March 16, 2025). "US deports 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador despite court ruling to halt flights". The Guardian. Retrieved March 16, 2025.
  45. ^ a b Martínez-Beltrán, Sergio (March 21, 2025). "Families of deported Venezuelans dispute gang claims after deportations under Alien Enemies Act". NPR. Archived from the original on March 22, 2025. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  46. ^ Armando, Garcia; Peter, Charalambous; Katherine, Faulders (March 18, 2025). "'Many' alleged gang members deported by Trump didn't have criminal records in the US: ICE". ABC News. Archived from the original on March 23, 2025. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  47. ^ Rose, Joel; Martínez-Beltrán, Sergio (March 18, 2025). "Tensions mount as judge demands more answers about deportation flights". NPR. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  48. ^ ""You're Here Because of Your Tattoos"". Mother Jones. Retrieved April 1, 2025.
  49. ^ "Documents appear to show how Trump admin identifies Venezuelan gang members: ACLU". ABC News.
  50. ^ a b Caputo, Mark (March 16, 2025). "Exclusive: How the White House ignored a judge's order to turn back deportation flights". Axios. Retrieved March 17, 2025.
  51. ^ Zurcher, Antony; Epstein, Kayla (February 17, 2025). "'Oopsie, too late' - US courts tested by Trump's latest deportations". BBC. Archived from the original on March 18, 2025. Retrieved February 22, 2025.
  52. ^ Layne, Nathan; Queen, Jack; Coster, Helen (March 17, 2025). "Trump administration deports Venezuelans despite court order, says judge has no authority". Reuters. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  53. ^ Pitzke, Marc (March 18, 2025). "Nachtflug in die Hölle". Der Spiegel (in German). Archived from the original on March 18, 2025. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  54. ^ Penley, Taylor (March 17, 2025). "Tom Homan calls out 'radical' judge for 'defying logic' with ruling to stall Trump deportations". Fox News. Retrieved March 17, 2025.
  55. ^ Habeshian, Sareen (March 17, 2025). "Judge gives DOJ Tuesday deadline in Venezuelan deportations case". Axios. Retrieved March 17, 2025.
  56. ^ Wolfe, Jan (March 17, 2025). "Trump Administration Defends Deportation Flights After Court Order". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on March 17, 2025. Retrieved March 23, 2025.
  57. ^ Jansen, Bart (March 18, 2025). "Government lawyers argue oral orders not enforceable". USA Today. Retrieved March 23, 2025.
  58. ^ Cole, Devan (March 18, 2025). "Judge who Trump says should be impeached gives DOJ another deadline for details on deportation flights". CNN. Retrieved March 23, 2025.
  59. ^ Faguy, Ana (March 20, 2025). "Trump says judge in migrant deportations case is 'Grandstander'". BBC News. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  60. ^ Irwin, Lauren (March 19, 2025). "Bondi says judge has 'no right' to ask flight deportation questions". The Hill. Retrieved March 23, 2025.
  61. ^ Mallin, Alexander (March 20, 2025). "'Woefully insufficient': Federal judge accuses Justice Department of evading 'obligations' to comply with deportation flights request". ABC News. Retrieved March 21, 2025.
  62. ^ "Judge Scolds DOJ Lawyer Over Failure to Obey Deportation Order". Bloomberg.
  63. ^ "NOTICE INVOKING STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE". www.courtlistener.com. Court Listener. Retrieved March 25, 2025.
  64. ^ Feuer, Alan; Savage, Charlie (March 24, 2025). "Justice Dept. Refuses to Give Judge Flight Data, Citing State Secrets". New York Times. Archived from the original on March 25, 2025. Retrieved March 25, 2025.
  65. ^ Barrett, Devlin (June 24, 2025). "At Justice Dept., Bove Suggested Violating Court Orders, Whistle-Blower Says". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 24, 2025.
  66. ^ Charalambous, Peter; Faulders, Katherine; Mallin, Alexander (April 3, 2025). "Judge Boasberg says he's contemplating 'contempt proceedings' over Trump deportations". ABC News. New York: The Walt Disney Company and its related entities. Archived from the original on April 5, 2025. Retrieved April 5, 2025. U.S. District Judge James Boasberg said at a hearing Thursday that he is contemplating initiating 'contempt proceedings' against the government in the event he finds probable cause they deliberately defied his March 15 order that barred removals under the Alien Enemies Act and directed two flights carrying alleged Venezuelan gang members be returned to the United States.
  67. ^ N. P. R. Staff (April 16, 2025). "Judge: 'Probable cause' to hold U.S. in contempt over Alien Enemies Act deportations". NPR. Retrieved April 16, 2025.
  68. ^ Boasberg, James (April 16, 2025). "Memorandum Opinion" (PDF). DocumentCloud. Retrieved April 16, 2025.
  69. ^ LeVine, Marianne; Hsu, Spencer S.; Rizzo, Salvador (April 16, 2025). "Judge Boasberg to launch contempt proceedings for Trump administration". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved April 16, 2025.
  70. ^ a b Bower, Anna; Parloff, Roger (May 8, 2025). "Our Reporters' Notes on the May 7 Hearing in the J.G.G. Case". Lawfare. Retrieved May 9, 2025.
  71. ^ Rosen, Jacob; Montoya-Galvez, Camilo; Quinn, Melissa (June 4, 2025). "Trump administration must give due process to Venezuelan men sent to Salvadoran prison, judge rules". CBS News. Retrieved June 5, 2025.
  72. ^ Charalambous, Peter; Romero, Laura (June 4, 2025). "El Salvador deportees are entitled to due process, judge rules". ABC News. Retrieved June 5, 2025.
  73. ^ a b Feuer, Alan (June 10, 2025). "Appeals Court Pauses Order to Give Deported Venezuelans Due Process". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 11, 2025.
  74. ^ Savage, Charlie; Barnes, Julian E. (March 20, 2025). "Intelligence Assessment Said to Contradict Trump on Venezuelan Gang". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  75. ^ Feuer, Alan; Savage, Charlie (March 26, 2025). "Appeals Court Maintains Block on Trump's Deportation Flights Under Alien Enemies Act". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on March 27, 2025. Retrieved March 27, 2025.
  76. ^ Hesson, Ted; Cohen, Luc (March 27, 2025). "US appeals court upholds block on Trump deportation of some Venezuelans". Reuters. Washington, D.C. Retrieved March 27, 2025. A three-judge panel voted 2-1 to uphold Boasberg's block on deportations, with U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker - who was appointed by Trump during his first term - dissenting.
  77. ^ Parloff, Roger (March 24, 2025). "The Upcoming Court of Appeals Argument in the Alien Enemies Act Case". Lawfare. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  78. ^ Feuer, Alan (April 19, 2025). "Appeals Court Pauses for Now Contempt Proposal by Trial Judge". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 11, 2025.
  79. ^ Sherman, Mark (March 28, 2025). "Trump asks Supreme Court for permission to resume deporting Venezuelan migrants under wartime law". AP News. Retrieved March 28, 2025.
  80. ^ a b Howe, Amy (April 7, 2025). "Supreme Court requires noncitizens to challenge detention and removal in Texas". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved April 10, 2025.
  81. ^ Fritze, John (April 7, 2025). "Supreme Court allows Trump to enforce Alien Enemies Act for rapid deportations for now | CNN Politics". CNN. Retrieved April 7, 2025.
  82. ^ Totenberg, Nina (April 7, 2025). "Supreme Court temporarily backs Trump in controversial deportations case". NPR. Retrieved April 7, 2025.
  83. ^ Gonzalez, Valerie; Neumeister, Larry (April 9, 2025). "Judges bar US use of Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans held in parts of Texas and New York". AP News. Retrieved April 10, 2025.
  84. ^ a b Geidner, Chris (April 9, 2025). "Two judges issue temporary orders blocking Trump's Alien Enemies Act removals". www.lawdork.com. Retrieved April 10, 2025.
  85. ^ Pullano, Nina (April 22, 2025). "Judge extends safeguards for Venezuelan detainees in NYC". Courthouse News. Retrieved April 22, 2025.
  86. ^ Feuer, Alan; Schwartz, Mattathias; Savage, Charlie (May 1, 2025). "Trump Is Ousting Michael Waltz and the Latest Immigration News: Live Updates, A Texas judge strikes down Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  87. ^ Reilly, Ryan J. (May 1, 2025). "Trump-appointed federal judge rejects use of Alien Enemies Act in Venezuelan deportations". NBC News. Retrieved May 1, 2025.
  88. ^ Perez, Chris (April 14, 2025). "Judge sides with Venezuelans in ordering Trump admin to 'not remove' them in new ACLU case". Law & Crime. Retrieved April 17, 2025.
  89. ^ Charalambous, Peter; Katersky, Aaron. "Judge in New York extends block on AEA deportations, calling them 'medieval'". ABC News. Retrieved April 22, 2025.
  90. ^ Sherry, Allison (April 29, 2025). "Federal appeals court denies Trump administration's request to throw out a ban on Salvadoran deporations". Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved April 30, 2025.
  91. ^ Sherry, Allison (May 6, 2025). "Judge bars federal government from using Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans from Colorado". Colorado Public Radio. Retrieved May 7, 2025.
  92. ^ Feuer, Alan; Aleaziz, Hamed; VanSickle, Abbie (April 18, 2025). "Lawyers Urge Courts to Halt More Deportations of Venezuelans Under Alien Enemies Act". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 18, 2025. Retrieved April 19, 2025.
  93. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (April 19, 2025). "The Supreme Court's Late-Night Rebuke to Trump Is Extraordinary in More Ways Than One". Slate. Archived from the original on April 19, 2025. Retrieved April 19, 2025.
  94. ^ Kalmbacher, Colin (May 10, 2025). "Judge gives Trump a win by denying class certification in Alien Enemies Act case". Law & Crime. Retrieved May 11, 2025.
  95. ^ Howe, Amy (May 16, 2025). "Supreme Court again bars Trump from removing Venezuelan nationals". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved May 18, 2025.
  96. ^ "Litigation Tracker: Legal Challenges to Trump Administration Actions". Just Security. May 13, 2025. Retrieved May 13, 2025.
  97. ^ Roebuck, Jeremy; LeVine, Marianne (May 13, 2025). "Judge says Trump may use Alien Enemies Act for deportations in Pa., with more notice". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved May 13, 2025.
  98. ^ Kalmbacher, Colin (May 21, 2025). "Judge bars deportation under Alien Enemies Act in effort to make 'America great'". Law & Crime. Retrieved June 15, 2025.
  99. ^ Seiden, Daniel (May 23, 2025). "Venezuelans Get Class Certification in Bid to Stop Removal". Bloomberg Law. Retrieved June 9, 2025.
  100. ^ Moore, Robert (May 29, 2025). "El Paso federal judge hears latest challenge to Trump use of Enemy Aliens Act to target Venezuelans". El Paso Matters. Retrieved June 10, 2025.
  101. ^ Moore, Robert (June 10, 2025). "Trump's use of Enemy Aliens Act against alleged Venezuelan gang members was illegal, El Paso judge rules". El Paso Matters. Retrieved June 10, 2025.
  102. ^ Zeleny, Jeff; Maher, Kit (March 21, 2025). "Trump says he didn't sign proclamation invoking Alien Enemies Act". CNN. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  103. ^ "Trump deflects on deportation order invoking Alien Enemies Act: 'Other people handled it'". The Hill.
  104. ^ "Can Judge James Boasberg Be Impeached? How Process Works as GOP Push Grows". Newsweek. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  105. ^ "'Principled and fair': Judge Boasberg had nonpartisan record before facing Trump's fury". CNN. Retrieved March 22, 2025.
  106. ^ Montoya-Galvez, Camilo; Hanflig, Annabelle (March 20, 2025). "Here are the names of the Venezuelans deported by the U.S. to El Salvador". CBS News. Archived from the original on March 24, 2025. Retrieved March 24, 2025.
  107. ^ "Partner of deported Venezuelan found out he had been sent to notorious El Salvador prison when she saw him in video arriving there - CBS News". www.cbsnews.com. March 26, 2025.
  108. ^ Vega, Cecilia (April 6, 2025). "U.S. sent 238 migrants to Salvadoran mega-prison; documents indicate most have no apparent criminal records". CBS "60 Minutes". Retrieved April 7, 2025.

Primary case

Subsequent cases

This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.