Judge Boasberg Questions Legality of Trump’s Deportation Policies and CECOT Prison
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg recently held a hearing scrutinizing the legality of the Trump administration’s deportation policies, particularly those utilizing the Alien Enemies Act and involving the transfer of migrants to CECOT, a high-security prison in El Salvador. The hearing focused on the administration’s authority to deport individuals under the Alien Enemies Act, the conditions faced by migrants at CECOT, and the extent to which the U.S. government can influence their treatment.
Boasberg’s questioning centered on public statements made by former President Donald Trump and other high-ranking officials regarding deportation proceedings and the ability of the U.S. to intervene in the cases of deported migrants. He specifically targeted claims made by Trump and then-DHS Secretary Kristi Noem about CECOT and the ability of the White House to secure the release of individuals held there.
The judge pressed Justice Department lawyer Abhishek Kambli regarding Trump’s remarks in an ABC News interview, where Trump asserted he could secure the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, an alleged gang member deported to El Salvador. Boasberg questioned whether Trump’s claim was truthful, probing the extent of the U.S.’s influence over the situation. This line of questioning aimed to establish whether El Salvador truly held custody of deported migrants, a critical aspect of the legal challenge.
Another crucial area of focus was the legality of using the Alien Enemies Act to expedite deportations to CECOT. Boasberg emphasized that the Supreme Court had not definitively ruled on the validity of Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act for these deportations. He cited the Supreme Court’s ruling to underscore that the court had not explicitly approved the legality of Trump’s proclamation.
In a notable suggestion, Boasberg raised the possibility of transferring migrants currently detained at CECOT to the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay. This proposal aimed to provide the U.S. government with a more direct opportunity to determine whether these individuals were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan gang cited by the Trump administration as justification for using the Alien Enemies Act.
Boasberg also challenged Kambli on comments made by Secretary Noem, who described CECOT as "one of the tools in our toolkit" against individuals who commit crimes against the American people. He further questioned White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt’s statement that the U.S. had provided $6 million to El Salvador to house migrants at CECOT. Kambli responded that these remarks sometimes "lack nuance" and characterized the payments as "grants."
The hearing was characterized by Boasberg’s incisive questioning regarding statements made by Trump officials and whether migrants deported to CECOT received due process or prior notice.
The judge questioned Lee Gelernt, an ACLU lawyer representing the plaintiffs, about whether the first group of migrants deported to CECOT received prior notice or due process protections. Gelernt stated that these migrants received no prior notice and were only given declarations as they were being transported to the airport for deportation.
Gelernt highlighted that the notices given to the migrants contained the phrase "NO REVIEW IS AVAILABLE" prominently displayed in English. While this phrase has since been removed, it has not been replaced with information about eligibility for review or habeas relief. Kambli acknowledged that the migrants received some notice but was unsure of the "precise contours" of that notice. Boasberg responded sharply, suggesting that providing less than 12 hours’ notice could not be considered due process.
Boasberg announced his intention to issue an order outlining the next steps and gave the government until Friday to file any further declarations. The plaintiffs were then given until Monday to review discovery, including requests for additional information.
The Trump administration previously accused Boasberg of judicial overreach and this hearing could place him in their crosshairs once again.
Unlike the previous lawsuit heard by Boasberg in March, which sought to temporarily halt Trump’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, the plaintiffs are now seeking more lasting relief.
The preliminary injunction was filed as a class action and aims to protect two classes of migrants: those already deported to CECOT and those still detained in the U.S. at risk of imminent removal.
The plaintiffs are seeking broader relief for individuals at risk of what they argue is "grave and irreparable harm" under the Alien Enemies Act.
For U.S. detainees facing removal, the plaintiffs requested an order blocking their removal under the AEA and requiring the administration to provide at least 30 days’ notice before any planned removals. This notice, they argued, would allow individuals to challenge their removals in U.S. court.
Providing relief to migrants already deported to CECOT presents a more complex challenge.
The plaintiffs asked Boasberg to order the administration to not only facilitate the return of deported migrants but also to take "all reasonable steps" to do so. This could include requiring the administration to direct any contractors or agents in El Salvador to transfer the individuals from CECOT into U.S. custody.
It is unclear whether the Trump administration will comply with such an order, should Boasberg grant the requested injunctive relief. Recent actions indicate that compliance in the near term is unlikely.
The hearing coincided with increasing defiance from the Trump administration in the face of court orders to return migrants from CECOT, including two individuals erroneously deported in March who were ordered back to the U.S. by separate federal judges.
The administration has so far refused to return them. The Trump administration has not yet disclosed whether it has returned any migrants deported to CECOT under the Alien Enemies Act.
The identities of these individuals are difficult to ascertain. The Trump administration has not released a list of individuals it has deported to El Salvador, and the Salvadoran government has also withheld their identities from public disclosure.
This growing resistance has raised concerns among Trump’s critics and some legal observers, who fear the administration may be testing the limits of executive authority.
The plaintiffs also raised concerns about the potential harm to the migrants. They argued that without injunctive relief, the Trump administration could send hundreds more individuals to the notorious Salvadoran prison, where they could be held incommunicado for the remainder of their lives.
