Legal Battle Erupts Over Deportation of Venezuelan Nationals to El Salvador
A contentious legal battle has unfolded between the Justice Department and a U.S. District Judge following the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to El Salvador. The heart of the dispute lies in whether the deportations violated a court order that sought to temporarily halt such actions while the legality of using the Alien Enemies Act to expedite removals was assessed.
The Justice Department has staunchly defended its actions, asserting that the deportation flights in question occurred before the court’s order took effect. This assertion has been met with skepticism and further scrutiny from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who issued a series of directives demanding detailed information about the flights.
The controversy ignited after Judge Boasberg granted an emergency order on Saturday, temporarily blocking the deportation flights for a period of 14 days. This order was intended to allow the court to thoroughly examine the legal basis for using the 1798 wartime-era Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelan nationals and alleged members of the violent gang Tren de Aragua. The plaintiffs in the case, Democracy Forward and the ACLU, argued that the deportations would inflict imminent and irreparable harm on the migrants.
Judge Boasberg further emphasized the urgency of the situation by ordering the Trump administration to immediately halt any planned deportations and to ensure the return of any planes already in the air with these individuals on board. However, the Justice Department claims that at least two planes filled with over 200 migrants had already departed for El Salvador before the order was issued.
In response to the deportations, Judge Boasberg demanded that the Trump administration provide detailed information about the flights, including their departure times from U.S. soil and airspace, arrival times in El Salvador, and the number of individuals deported solely under the authority of the Alien Enemies Act.
The Justice Department, however, has resisted providing additional information, arguing that the flights occurred before the court’s order took effect and that further disclosures would be inappropriate. In a filing co-signed by Attorney General Pamela Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, and others, the government maintained that there was no violation of the court’s written order, as the relevant flights had left U.S. airspace before the order was issued.
Judge Boasberg rejected this argument and ordered the Justice Department to answer five specific questions under seal by a deadline of noon on Wednesday. These questions sought precise details regarding the departure and arrival times of the flights, the locations involved, the timing of transfers of individuals from U.S. custody, and the number of people deported solely under the Alien Enemies Act.
The White House has also weighed in on the matter. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that one plane carrying hundreds of migrants, including more than 130 individuals removed under the Alien Enemies Act, had already left U.S. airspace by the time the court order was handed down.
ICE Acting Field Office Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations Robert Cerna provided a declaration explaining ICE’s understanding of the timeline. According to Cerna, ICE understood the invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to be effective only upon its posting on the White House website, which occurred around 3:53 PM EDT on March 15, 2025. He stated that two planes departed U.S. territory and airspace before 7:25 PM EDT, while a third plane departed after that time, but that all individuals on the third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and were not removed solely under the Alien Enemies Act.
Cerna further clarified that no one on any flight departing the United States after 7:25 PM EDT on March 15, 2025, was removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue. He also provided information on ICE’s tracking of Tren de Aragua members, indicating that approximately 54 members were in detention and on the detained docket, 172 were on the non-detained docket, and 32 were in criminal custody with active detainers against them.
The legal battle raises significant questions about the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations and the timing of court orders in relation to government actions. The dispute also underscores the tension between the government’s enforcement priorities and the legal rights of migrants seeking protection in the United States.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for immigration enforcement policies and the treatment of asylum seekers and other vulnerable populations. It remains to be seen how Judge Boasberg will rule after reviewing the Justice Department’s responses to his questions and considering the arguments presented by both sides.
