logo
Trump administration must give due process to Venezuelan men sent to Salvadoran prison, judge rules

Trump administration must give due process to Venezuelan men sent to Salvadoran prison, judge rules

CBS News04-06-2025
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the Trump administration to give more than 100 Venezuelan men it sent to a supermax prison in El Salvador earlier this year a chance to contest their deportation, the latest development after months of legal battles over the fate of the deportees.
U.S. District Judge James Boasberg found that the 137 men removed to El Salvador on March 15 under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act had been "plainly deprived" of their due process rights. The Trump administration has argued the 18th century wartime law allows the government to summarily deport Venezuelans identified to be gang members, though that argument has been rejected by several federal judges. The deportees are held in El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center prison, or CECOT.
Boasberg concluded that the secretive deportations to El Salvador in March had "improperly withheld" from the deportees due process rights that he said "must now be afforded to them."
The order by Boasberg gave the Justice Department one week to say how it intends to provide the 137 Venezuelan deportees an opportunity to seek relief under the constitutional principle of habeas corpus, which allows people to challenge their detention.
The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
"As is now clear, CECOT Class members were entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removability pursuant to the Proclamation. That process — which was improperly withheld — must now be afforded to them. Put differently, Plaintiffs' ability to bring habeas challenges to their removal must be restored," Boasberg wrote. The judge added that the men "must be allowed the practical opportunity to seek habeas relief that they were previously denied," and their cases must be handled as if they had never been removed to El Salvador in the first place.
Boasberg ruled that he does not have jurisdiction over Venezuelan men who are subject to the Alien Enemies Act proclamation and are still in state or federal custody. The judge said he cannot grant them relief from his position on the bench in D.C. after the American Civil Liberties Union asked for relief for both groups of men.
The Trump administration has repeatedly said all the Venezuelan men deported to El Salvador are dangerous criminals and members of Tren de Aragua, a prison gang that the president labeled a wartime enemy and terrorist group. But a "60 Minutes" and CBS News review of the migrants' cases found that an overwhelming majority of the men have no apparent criminal convictions or charges.
The Venezuelan migrants deported to El Salvador and imprisoned at CECOT include Andry Romero Hernandez, a gay makeup artist whom an independent journalist photographed weeping when he was transferred to the maximum-security facility.
Boasberg also expressed concerns about the government's claims that all the deportees are gangsters, saying, "significant evidence has come to light indicating that many of those currently entombed in CECOT have no connection to the gang and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations."
"The court correctly held that the government cannot simply wash its hands of all responsibility for these constitutional violations and leave these men to linger in a brutal prison, perhaps for the rest of their lives," said Lee Gelernt, the ACLU lawyer leading the legal challenge against the Trump administration's use of the Alien Enemies Act.
The March 15 deportation flights at the center of the legal fight overseen by Boasberg sent roughly 240 Venezuelan men to El Salvador, alongside roughly two dozen Salvadorans accused of gang membership. According to government officials, 137 of the Venezuelans were expelled under the Alien Enemies Act, which allows deportations during a foreign invasion, while the rest were deported under regular immigration law.
Earlier this year, Boasberg blocked deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, after a challenge was brought by the ACLU on behalf of a group of Venezuelan migrants who sought to prevent their removal under the more than 200-year-old wartime law.
After an appeal of Boasberg's order by the Trump administration, the Supreme Court in April allowed the Trump administration to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act, but mandated that those subject to removal are entitled to some level of due process, including a notice before their deportation.
While the April Supreme Court ruling prohibited Boasberg from granting nationwide relief to those currently in state and local detention across the country, the ACLU asked him to consider the case of the men who are already in CECOT given that there are no other legal jurisdictions that apply.
In April, Boasberg found that probable cause exists to find the Trump administration in criminal contempt over what he said was its "willful disregard" of his order to turn two planes carrying the men around.
The judge said the Trump administration can remedy the breach of his order before contempt proceedings are initiated by asserting custody over the migrants who were removed in violation of it, so they can assert their right to challenge their removability. That has not happened yet, and the Trump administration has argued in both this case and the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia — who was deported due to an "administrative error" — that it does not have custody over the men, because they are technically under the control of the Salvadoran government.
President Trump and his allies have repeatedly attacked Boasberg over his handling of the case that arose after the president issued a proclamation in March invoking the Alien Enemies Act.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Trump Administration Suspends UCLA Grants After Rights Probe
Trump Administration Suspends UCLA Grants After Rights Probe

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Administration Suspends UCLA Grants After Rights Probe

(Bloomberg) -- The federal government is suspending certain research funding to the University of California at Los Angeles over concerns about antisemitism and bias on campus, hitting one of the most prestigious public higher-education systems in the US. The World's Data Center Capital Has Residents Surrounded An Abandoned Art-Deco Landmark in Buffalo Awaits Revival We Should All Be Biking Along the Beach Budapest's Most Historic Site Gets a Controversial Rebuild San Francisco in Talks With Vanderbilt for Downtown Campus In a message to students and staff, UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk said the suspension could affect hundreds of grants from agencies including the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. He called the decision a blow to researchers and the broader public who benefit from their work in areas such as medical innovation and space exploration. The Associated Press reported that the Trump administration is freezing grants to UCLA that are valued at $339 million, citing a person familiar with the matter. 'This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,' Frenk said in the message on Thursday. The move comes as the federal government steps up civil rights enforcement at universities in response to campus unrest over the war in Gaza. While the administration's efforts have focused largely on some of the nation's most elite private universities — including Harvard, Cornell and Northwestern — they have also extended to the public sphere, with the 10-campus University of California system, including Berkeley, facing heightened scrutiny. Since last week, Columbia University and Brown University have reached agreements with the federal government to restore previously announced funding cuts, agreeing to years of new oversight and compliance measures. The UCLA funding freeze follows a federal investigation that found the school violated federal civil rights laws by failing to address antisemitic harassment on campus. This week, the Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division said the university acted with 'deliberate indifference' to reports of abuse targeting Jewish and Israeli students since the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing conflict. The department cited UCLA for failing to meet its legal obligations under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The decision adds pressure to a university already facing financial strains. Looming state budget cuts prompted a UC system-wide hiring freeze and broader cost-cutting, with officials warning of potentially deeper shortfalls ahead. Frenk said UCLA has taken steps to address antisemitism, including forming a new Office of Campus and Community Safety and launching an Initiative to Combat Antisemitism. He said the university is reviewing its options and has contingency plans in place to protect students, faculty and staff. --With assistance from John Gittelsohn and Janet Lorin. (Updates with value of grants in third paragraph.) How Podcast-Obsessed Tech Investors Made a New Media Industry Russia Builds a New Web Around Kremlin's Handpicked Super App Everyone Loves to Hate Wind Power. Scotland Found a Way to Make It Pay Off It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Cage-Free Eggs Are Booming in the US, Despite Cost and Trump's Efforts ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data

What a weaker dollar means for inflation
What a weaker dollar means for inflation

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What a weaker dollar means for inflation

The US dollar ( has fallen this year, and that can have big implications for inflation. RSM chief economist Joe Brusuelas talks about that connection and when the impact of tariffs may start to show in the US economy. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination Overtime. turning out to the dollar index, it's seen many swings we know amid economic uncertainty. Joe, you highlight what the moves in the currency mean for inflation? Walk us through that. All right. When you get a sustained 10% decline in the value of the dollar, typically, you should expect to see a 1/2 of 1% increase in inflation over the next 6 to 12 months. We clearly are at that point, even though we had a nice rebound. I think it was 3.3% for the month of July, strongest month for the greenback this year, but nevertheless, the policy mix out of the administration, all points towards a weaker dollar, and I think that's what we're going to get. Moreover, when you take a look at import prices, especially import prices ex petroleum, it tells the tale. We're going to see more inflation and a weaker dollar going forward. Does Trump want a strong dollar? I would think he does, and I think, well, I think like all politicians, he wants to have his cake and eat it, too. He doesn't want de-dollarization, clearly, but he wants a weaker dollar because A, it really tends to juice the tech sector, and B, it will provide relief to the beleaguered manufacturing sector that's been in an effective recession for the past couple of years. Is it too soon to say the kind of impact the softer dollars had during this earnings season, particularly what it's meant for the multinationals? It's way too early to jump on that bandwagon. I think we're really going to be talking in the fourth quarter earnings, and then next year. Moreover, a lot of those firms that he wants to help are actually having real problems with the tariff issue because, you know, 45% of everything we import goes into domestic manufacturing. So policies at a cross purposes, a good portion of the time this year, which is why that economy slowed to 1.2% growth in the first half of the year, and we think it's not going to do much better. Our forecast for this year is 1.1%. Can I ask you when we talk about these tariff policies? We've been talking about them all show. There's the near to intermediate impact, but how long do we have to wait to see what the long-term impact is? Meaning, do I have to wait till does it have to be August 2026, and Joe and Josh are back on set for me to really know, okay, it's really boosted manufacturing job. It's really opened up all these new markets for American business. It's really raised this much revenue. It's a little worse, actually. So as of midnight last night, on once we get to October 5th, we're going to have an effective 18.3% tariff. The real problem is we won't really understand what any of this means, not till October 5th, 2026, but more like October 5th, 2027. Why? Why do you say that, Joe? Because it takes so long to pass through the tariff costs. You know, there are four points along the chain. You've got your retail, you've got your consumers, you've got your importers, and you've got your exporters. At each point of the supply chain, you're going to see a bit of it absorbed, a bit of it eaten. When we went through this in 2018, for example, we didn't see the full price of the increase in the price of washing machines, dryers, and dishwashers caused by tariffs show up on consumers' balance sheets until about two years later. Turned out 90% of that cost was eaten entirely by consumers. So when we talk about whether where the cost falls falls on the value chain, and there was this big debate, maybe it's really the key debate inside the Fed. Tell me if I'm wrong, but this debate about whether the the the tariff induced inflation is one time or transitory persistent. Even if it's one time, it could go on for some time. Is that part of the point? Well, that's right, and that's why they've been counseling patients because you just don't know. Right now, for all of the noise, right? The tariff rate that's showing up, which is causing revenues to rise, right? And from the Trump administration's point of view, that's an absolutely good thing. It's about 8.85%. It's not 30, it's not 50, it's not 15. But as we get into mid-October, it'll be closer to 20 is my sense because we're still not done with Mexico, and we're still not done with China, and then USMCA has to be renegotiated next year. So this is going to be a variable target. It's going to be a moving target, but nevertheless, if you cause the average price of goods imported in the United States to rise by 18.3%, that's going to be eaten. And here's why we say that. There's a lot of talk that, well, foreign exporters are just eating the price. You know, they're going to engage in invoice pricing. If that was the case, import prices would be falling significantly. They're not. They're actually rising. So that's just not happening. So that means it's not the exporter, it's going to be the importer, the retail, or the consumer. Those points on the chain where those are going to be eaten. Joe, I can honestly say that given the news flow today, you were the perfect guy to be sitting in that chair. That's very kind of you to say. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you so much, Joe.

Two unaffiliated candidates run for Charlotte City Council
Two unaffiliated candidates run for Charlotte City Council

Yahoo

time19 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Two unaffiliated candidates run for Charlotte City Council

Two candidates who are running to serve Charlotte on the city council have their work cut out for them just to get on the ballot. Lia White and Robin Emmons want to run for Charlotte City Council as unaffiliated candidates. But the process isn't easy. An unaffiliated voter who wants to run for the city council has to collect signatures of registered voters to qualify for the ballot. White wants to run in District 2 against Malcolm Graham. READ: Councilwoman Tiawana Brown files for reelection Emmons wants to run in District 3 against Tiawana Brown. They each need about 1,400 signatures to get on the ballot. And they told Channel 9's Joe Bruno that the challenge of canvassing and asking for help has been a rewarding experience. 'I work at Camp 7:00 to 6:00, and so I get off from 6:30 to 8:00, or I'll say, by time the sun goes down, I'll knock on doors,' White said. 'I've been doing community events. I've been reaching out to local businesses to see if I can leave petitions there.' And Emmons said she can see the benefits to the process. 'I want to say that the bar is obviously higher, but I think maybe the outcome is better,' she said. 'It has really been so gratifying to talk with people and to earn the respect and the credibility of getting on the ballot rather than putting a sign in the yard and giving a political pitch.' To learn more about the candidates, watch their full interviews with Channel 9's Joe Bruno on The Political Beat on Sunday at 11:30 a.m. and 11:30 p.m. WATCH: Councilwoman Tiawana Brown files for reelection Solve the daily Crossword

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store