Migrants Deported Under AEA Win Court Challenge \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to provide over 100 deported migrants a fair chance to contest their removals to El Salvador. The ruling follows accusations that they were unfairly labeled gang members without due process. It marks a major legal blow to Trump’s controversial use of wartime powers to bypass immigration courts.
Quick Looks
- Judge James Boasberg ruled migrants deported to El Salvador must be allowed to contest their removals.
- Over 100 individuals were sent to the country under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798.
- The administration’s plan targeted alleged members of Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua gang.
- Boasberg cited “flimsy” and “frivolous” accusations against many deportees.
- The judge gave the Trump administration one week to outline a new legal process.
- Deportations continued despite a prior court order to halt the flights.
- The Supreme Court ruled those targeted under AEA must have judicial review.
- El Salvador’s President Bukele mocked the U.S. judiciary on social media.
- Boasberg noted parallels with Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wrongful deportation case.
- Legal experts expect the issue to reach the Supreme Court again.
Deep Look
A major Trump administration deportation strategy—invoking a centuries-old wartime law to remove alleged gang members—has hit a critical legal wall. On Wednesday, Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the federal government must provide over 100 migrants deported to El Salvador’s high-security prison system the right to challenge the decisions that led to their removal from the U.S.
The administration, acting under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 (AEA), claimed the deportees were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal gang with alleged ties to foreign governments. However, Boasberg found the process to be constitutionally insufficient—particularly given the “troubling conduct” by the administration in disregarding prior court orders.
Deportation Without Due Process
Boasberg’s ruling came in response to growing concerns from immigrant rights organizations and legal scholars that the administration had bypassed the judicial system. In March, the government began deporting migrants under the AEA, removing them from the reach of U.S. courts and placing them in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center—a notorious facility often criticized by human rights groups.
According to the judge, these deportations were executed without any meaningful opportunity for detainees to challenge their designation as threats or criminals.
“Significant evidence has emerged suggesting that many of the deported individuals have no ties to Tren de Aragua,” Boasberg wrote. “They languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.”
He ordered the administration to develop a formal process—within one week—that would allow the deportees to appeal their cases, even while in Salvadoran custody.
Ignoring Court Orders, Defying Norms
Boasberg also confirmed that the administration defied his previous directive to ground deportation flights. After he initially blocked the removals, the administration proceeded with the flights anyway—prompting a contempt of court inquiry.
In a now-infamous post, Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele taunted the judge, writing “Oopsie, too late,” after the planes landed. The message was shared by some of Trump’s top aides, underlining the political nature of the standoff.
The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently weighed in, ruling that individuals accused under the AEA must be allowed to appear before a judge. Boasberg’s current decision applies that precedent to those already deported, effectively restoring their right to contest their treatment retroactively.
“The government plainly deprived them of a constitutionally adequate process,” Boasberg said. “It must now proceed as if that process had never been denied.”
Gang Allegations Questioned
The Trump administration has alleged that Tren de Aragua operates as a de facto proxy for the Venezuelan regime and presents a threat comparable to hostile nations. But courts have questioned this interpretation of the AEA, a law previously used only in three major U.S. wars: the War of 1812, World War I, and World War II.
Critics argue that targeting gang members under a statute meant for enemies of the state stretches the law beyond recognition.
Legal Precedents and Comparisons
Judge Boasberg drew comparisons to the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador despite a judge’s protection order. Courts, including the Supreme Court, have ordered the Trump administration to facilitate his return. Yet, Garcia remains abroad more than two months later.
This case casts doubt on the administration’s commitment to judicial compliance. Boasberg acknowledged the administration’s sealed filings explaining its agreement with El Salvador, but hinted at skepticism.
“Believing those representations was rendered more difficult given the Government’s troubling conduct throughout this case,” he noted.
Political and Legal Fallout
The ruling comes amid escalating tensions between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary. Trump has repeatedly attacked judges for impeding his immigration enforcement strategies, claiming that mass trials would paralyze the system.
“We cannot give everyone a trial!” Trump posted on Truth Social following another AEA-related injunction.
Meanwhile, the ACLU’s Lee Gelernt praised Boasberg’s ruling as “a major step forward in restoring the rights of migrants wrongly deported under unconstitutional procedures.”
Separate from the AEA case, a federal judge in San Diego ruled Wednesday that the administration also violated a settlement involving legal access for separated families—compounding the legal blows to Trump’s immigration policies.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.