On December 22, 2025, a ruling from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg sent shockwaves through the corridors of Washington and far beyond, marking a dramatic turn in the Trump administration’s contentious immigration policies. At the heart of the matter: the forced deportation of over 250 Venezuelan men to a notorious Salvadoran prison earlier in the year, and the administration’s use of a centuries-old wartime law to justify it.
Back in March, President Donald Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, a rarely used piece of legislation, to swiftly deport hundreds of Venezuelan migrants. These individuals, accused by U.S. authorities of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang, were loaded onto planes and flown to the Terrorism Confinement Center—known as CECOT—in El Salvador, a facility infamous throughout Latin America for its harsh conditions and maximum-security status. According to NPR, these men were held in CECOT for four months, reporting poor nutrition, unsanitary conditions, and sexual abuse during their imprisonment.
The saga took a dramatic twist when, despite a verbal order from Judge Boasberg to halt the deportations, the planes continued their journey. This apparent defiance of a federal court order triggered a contempt investigation and set up a tense standoff between the judiciary and the White House. As Fox News reported, Boasberg later concluded that the Trump administration’s actions were not only illegal but also deprived the migrants of their most basic constitutional protections—including prior notice of removal, a meaningful opportunity to contest their deportation, and the right to dispute allegations of gang membership.
Judge Boasberg’s written opinion was unequivocal: “On the merits, the Court concludes that this class was denied their due-process rights and will thus require the Government to facilitate their ability to obtain such hearing. Our law requires no less.” The judge gave the administration until January 5, 2026, to submit a plan for how it would provide these hearings—either by bringing the men back to the U.S. or by organizing hearings abroad that meet due process standards.
The ruling, covered by NBC6 South Florida News, made it clear that the administration couldn’t simply “spirit people off to a notorious foreign prison with zero due process and simply walk away.” Lee Gelernt, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union representing the plaintiffs, called the decision “critical,” adding, “There are consequences.”
For the men who had been caught up in this international shuffle, the story didn’t end in El Salvador. In July 2025, over 200 of the Venezuelan migrants were returned to their home country as part of a prisoner exchange that also saw the release of at least 10 Americans detained in Venezuela. This move, while offering a glimmer of hope for some, further complicated the legal picture. Many of the deported men had fled Venezuela originally and were now in hiding, making it difficult for their lawyers to contact them and ascertain who still wished to pursue their due process cases. According to Fox News, the ACLU reported that, as of December, 137 of the original 252 deported migrants still sought to move forward with their legal claims.
The legal battle has not only highlighted the human cost of rapid-fire immigration enforcement but has also brought to light the complex relationship between the U.S. and El Salvador. Judge Boasberg noted that the U.S. appeared to maintain a degree of “constructive custody” over the migrants at CECOT, referencing an agreement with El Salvador to house the men for at least a year. Public remarks from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other senior officials, which described CECOT as an “extension” of U.S. detention, further undermined the government’s claim that El Salvador had sole discretion over the detainees’ fate.
“If secretly spiriting individuals to another country were enough to neuter the Great Writ, then the Government could ‘snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action,’” Boasberg wrote, underscoring the constitutional stakes of the case.
The administration, for its part, has denied that it violated Boasberg’s order and is widely expected to appeal the ruling. Trump officials and their allies have sharply criticized Boasberg and other judges who have blocked or paused executive actions, labeling them “rogue, activist” jurists who are overstepping their authority. They argue that lower court judges should not have the power to prevent the president from executing what they see as a lawful agenda—though the courts have consistently disagreed on the legality of these actions.
Boasberg, appointed to the federal bench by President Barack Obama, has appeared unfazed by the political pressure. As reported by Fox News, he told the Justice Department in November that he “certainly intends to determine what happened” on the day the government either intentionally or unintentionally violated his emergency order. “The government,” he added dryly, “can assist me to whatever degree it wishes.”
As the legal wrangling continues, the ruling opens a path for the deported Venezuelans to challenge the government’s allegations that they are gang members and contest their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The outcome could have far-reaching implications, not just for the men involved, but for future uses of wartime immigration powers and the rights of non-citizens facing removal.
Meanwhile, the broader political context remains fraught. On the same day as the court’s decision, President Trump announced plans for a new class of U.S. Navy warships named after himself—a move that, while unrelated, underscored the administration’s penchant for headline-grabbing initiatives. The government’s next steps in the deportation case remain unclear, as officials scramble to comply with the judge’s order or prepare for a likely appeal.
For now, the fate of the Venezuelan migrants, and the future of due process in U.S. immigration enforcement, hang in the balance. With a court-imposed deadline looming and the eyes of the nation’s legal and political communities fixed on the case, the coming weeks promise to be decisive.
