Federal Judge’s Block on Venezuelan Deportations Sparks Battle with Trump Administration
A legal clash is brewing between a federal judge and the Trump administration over the use of a wartime law to deport Venezuelan nationals. U.S. District Court Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order halting the deportations, setting the stage for a larger confrontation as the administration vows to continue sending migrants back to Latin America.
Judge Boasberg’s decision on Saturday blocked the Trump administration from invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to immediately deport Venezuelan nationals, including alleged members of the violent gang Tren de Aragua, for a period of 14 days. The judge sided with Democracy Forward and the ACLU, who argued that the deportations would cause imminent and irreparable harm.
"Given the exigent circumstances that [the court] has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set," Judge Boasberg stated in his order.
The ruling drew immediate criticism from Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who declared in an interview that the administration would not be deterred. "We are not stopping. I don’t care what the judges think. I don’t care what the Left thinks. We’re coming," Homan said, signaling a continued fight over the issue.
This is not the first time Judge Boasberg has been at odds with Trump’s supporters. He previously oversaw the FISA court that authorized surveillance of certain members of Trump’s 2016 campaign, adding another layer of complexity to the current legal battle.
Appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama nearly 15 years ago, Judge Boasberg is the chief judge of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. In 2014, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts appointed him to serve a seven-year term on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA Court), a body comprised of 11 federal judges selected by the chief justice.
The FISA Court judges undergo extensive background checks and are responsible for approving surveillance requests and wiretap warrants sought by federal prosecutors, law enforcement, and intelligence agencies. Much of their work remains classified. Judge Boasberg served as the presiding judge of the FISA Court from 2020 to 2021.
Judge Boasberg’s background includes degrees from Yale, Oxford University, and Yale Law. He clerked for the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals before joining the Justice Department as a federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C.
Upon returning to the federal bench full-time, Judge Boasberg oversaw the sentencing of former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith, who pleaded guilty to altering a 2017 email requesting an extension of surveillance permissions for the wiretap of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page.
Judge Boasberg declined to sentence Clinesmith to prison, instead ordering 12 months of probation and 400 hours of community service. This decision raised eyebrows, given Judge Boasberg’s own background on the FISA court.
He explained that he believed Clinesmith’s role at the center of a years-long media "hurricane" had provided sufficient punishment. "Anybody who has watched what Mr. Clinesmith has suffered is not someone who will readily act in that fashion," Judge Boasberg said.
"Weighing all of these factors together – both in terms of the damages he caused and what he has suffered and the positives in his own life – I believe a probationary sentence is appropriate here and will therefore impose it," he continued.
Prior to this recent case, Judge Boasberg had largely avoided high-profile public disagreements with the Trump administration. However, his decision to grant the restraining order has thrust him into the spotlight.
Lawyers for the Trump administration immediately appealed the decision. Although Judge Boasberg’s order stipulated that any plane carrying migrants removed under the law be "immediately" returned to the U.S., the decision apparently came too late to stop an early wave of migrants being deported to El Salvador.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that a plane carrying hundreds of individuals, including over 130 persons removed under the Alien Enemies Act, had already "left U.S. airspace" by the time the order was issued. "The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist [Tren de Aragua] aliens had already been removed from U.S. territory," Leavitt said.
It remains unclear what, if any, steps the judge can take to reverse the deportation that has already occurred.
This standoff is the latest in a series of legal challenges aimed at blocking or slowing down the Trump administration’s executive actions and orders. Courts have struggled to keep pace with the administration’s agenda, which includes gutting government personnel, halting billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid, and attempting to ban birthright citizenship.
As of now, Trump has signed at least 200 executive orders and actions, most of which have been met with multiple court challenges and lawsuits. Many of these cases are in the early stages of legal proceedings, as courts seek to clarify the intent of the rulings, the alleged harm caused to plaintiffs, and whether judicial intervention is necessary or appropriate.
The White House argues that lower court judges should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what it deems a lawful agenda. However, the judges in question have disagreed, asserting that the president’s actions do not always align with the law.
"A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil," Leavitt stated.
The central issue is Trump’s invocation of the 228-year-old Alien Enemies Act to expedite the deportation of Venezuelan nationals suspected of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Plaintiffs argue that Congress originally passed the law to grant the president expanded powers during times of war to deport noncitizens. Since its enactment, the law has been used sparingly, specifically during the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
They contend that it is inappropriate for Trump to utilize the law now to deport Venezuelan migrants, as the country "is not invading the United States" and has not launched a "predatory incursion" into U.S. territory.
Judge Boasberg concurred, stating that the two-week freeze will allow the court more time to thoroughly consider the merits of the case. The legal battle is likely to escalate as the Trump administration continues to defend its actions and challenge the court’s ruling.
