>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Earlier this year, Judge Boasberg attempted to halt the deportation of thousands of Venezuelan nationals by issuing a temporary restraining order (TRO). That move was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Boasberg lacked jurisdiction to block the removals.
In April, the high court vacated Boasberg’s orders that barred the Trump administration from continuing deportations under the Alien Enemies Act. While the Supreme Court stated that deportees must receive reasonable notice to challenge their removal, it made clear that Boasberg overstepped his authority.
Despite that rebuke, Boasberg pressed forward. In June, he ruled that Venezuelan nationals sent to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT mega-prison must be given the opportunity to challenge their deportations in U.S. courts.
The judge went even further, claiming that nearly all of the approximately 140 Venezuelan men transferred to CECOT were unlawfully deported. He asserted that the Trump administration must allow these individuals to pursue habeas corpus relief—despite the fact that they are foreign nationals removed under federal authority.
In his opinion, Boasberg argued that many detainees were wrongfully labeled as gang members.
“Significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations,” the judge wrote.
The ruling escalated dramatically in a sweeping 43-page opinion released late Monday. Boasberg claimed that the United States retained what he described as “constructive custody” over the Venezuelans, even after their transfer to El Salvador—an assertion that allowed him to claim jurisdiction and order their return.
“In many constructive-custody cases, it is hard for a court to discern whether petitioners would be released upon a respondent’s request. Not so here. Petitioners have indeed been released upon the United States’s request. Since this Court’s June 4 Opinion, multiple developments have shown that the United States is able to request, and has successfully requested, the release of CECOT detainees.
First, after the Government was ordered to facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia from CECOT, he was brought back to the United States on June 6. This return followed public statements made by the President of the United States agreeing that he could “call up the president of El Salvador” to secure the return of detainees like Abrego Garcia.
Second, Plaintiffs in this case were indeed released upon the United States’s request, in what appears to be a clear prisoner exchange between our country and Venezuela.
In July, all 252 Venezuelans removed from the United States and detained in CECOT were sent to Venezuela. At the same time, ten U.S. nationals were released from Venezuela and sent back to the United States.
[…]
The Court thus concludes that the Government retained, and exercised, the power to control the return of CECOT detainees.”
Based on that reasoning, Boasberg concluded that the Trump administration violated due process by deporting suspected Tren de Aragua members without individualized hearings.
As a remedy, the judge ordered the administration to assist in bringing the deported men back to the United States so they can challenge their removals in American courts.
Under the ruling, the Trump administration has until January 5, 2026, to facilitate the return of more than 100 Venezuelan men—a decision that has already sparked outrage among conservatives who argue the judiciary is once again putting criminal aliens ahead of American citizens.
Critics warn the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, empowering activist judges to interfere in immigration enforcement and forcing the U.S. to re-import individuals previously deemed national security risks.
As the legal battle continues, the case underscores a broader clash between the Trump administration’s immigration agenda and a federal judiciary increasingly willing to intervene.
