Judge says migrants sent to El Salvador prison must get a chance to challenge their removals
WASHINGTON — A federal judge ruled on Wednesday that the Trump administration must give more than 100 migrants sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador a chance to challenge their deportations.
U.S. District Court Chief Judge James Boasberg said that people who were sent to the prison in March under an 18th-century wartime law haven't been able to formally contest the removals or allegations that they are members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. He ordered the administration to work toward giving them a way to file those challenges.
The judge wrote that 'significant evidence' has surfaced indicating that many of the migrants imprisoned in El Salvador are not connected to the gang 'and thus languish in a foreign prison on flimsy, even frivolous, accusations.'
Boasberg gave the administration one week to come up with a manner in which the 'at least 137' people can make those claims, even while they're formally in the custody of El Salvador. It's the latest milestone in the monthslong legal saga over the fate of deportees imprisoned at El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center.
After Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 in March and prepared to fly planeloads of accused gang members to El Salvador and out of the jurisdiction of U.S. courts, Boasberg ordered them to turn the planes around. This demand was ignored. Boasberg has found probably cause that the administration committed contempt of court after the flight landed. El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted a taunting message on social media — reposted by some of Trump's top aides — that read 'Oopsie, too late.'
The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that anyone targeted under the AEA has the right to appeal to a judge to contest their designation as an enemy of the state. Boasberg, in his latest, ruling wrote that he was simply applying that principle to those who'd been removed.
Boasberg said the administration 'plainly deprived' the immigrants of a chance to challenge their removals before they were put on flights. Therefore, he says the government must handle the migrants cases now as if they 'would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process.'
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The administration and its supporters have targeted Boasberg for his initial order halting deportations and his contempt inquiry, part of their growing battle with the judiciary as it puts the brakes on Trump's efforts to unilaterally remake government. The fight has been particularly harsh in the realm of immigration, where Trump has repeatedly said it'd be impossible to protect the country from dangerous immigrants if each one has his or her day in court.
'We cannot give everyone a trial!' the president posted on his social media site, Truth Social, after the Supreme Court intervened a second time in the AEA saga, halting a possible effort to evade its initial ruling by temporarily freezing deportations from northern Texas.
Boasberg wrote that he accepted the administration's declaration, filed under seal, providing details of the government's deal with El Salvador to house deportees and how that means the Venezuelans are technically under the legal control of El Salvador and not the United States. He added, while noting there is a criminal penalty for providing false testimony, that believing those representations was 'rendered more difficult given the Government's troubling conduct throughout this case.'
He also noted parallels with another case where the Trump administration admitted it mistakenly deported a Maryland man to El Salvador and has been ordered by a judge, appellate judges and the U.S. Supreme Court to 'facilitate' his return.
That man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, remains in El Salvador more than two months later.
ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt welcomed Boasberg's ruling.
'This is a significant step forward to getting these men the chance to show that they should not ever have been removed under a wartime authority,' Gelernt told reporters in San Diego after a hearing in an unrelated case.
Boasberg's order is only the latest of a blizzard of legal rulings in the sprawling AEA case.
Several judges have temporarily halted deportations under the act in parts of Texas, New York, California, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, finding the administration's 24 hour window that it gave detainees to challenge their designation under the act did not meet the Supreme Court's requirement of providing a 'reasonable' chance to seek relief. Deportations of people in the country illegally can continue in those areas under laws other than the AEA,
Some of the judges in those cases have also found that Trump cannot use the act to target a criminal gang rather than a state, noting that the act has only been invoked three prior times in history — during the War of 1812 and during World Wars I and II.
The Supreme Court will likely eventually decide those issues. The Trump administration contends that the gang is acting as a shadow arm of Venezuela's government.
Riccardi reported from Denver. Alanna Durkin Richer in Washington, D.C. contributed to this report.
Nicholas Riccardi And Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
4 hours ago
- CTV News
Britain hopes a crackdown on people-smugglers' social media ads will help curb Channel crossings
"Taxi boats" motor to pre-arranged off-shore pick-up points, where migrants waiting on the beaches then wade into the water, Friday July 4, 2205 on Hardelot beach south of Boulogne-sur-Mer, northern France. (AP Photo/John Leicester) LONDON — Britain says people who advertise fake passports or people-smuggling services on social medial could face up to five years in prison, in the government's latest effort to deter migrants from crossing the English Channel in small boats. The government said Sunday that anyone convicted of creating online materials intended to break U.K. immigration law will face prison time and a large fine. U.K. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper said the aim was to stop the 'brazen tactics on social media' used by smuggling gangs. 'Selling the false promise of a safe journey to the U.K. and a life in this country — whether on or offline — simply to make money, is nothing short of immoral,' she said. Assisting illegal immigration to the U.K. is already a crime, but officials believe a new offense — part of a border security bill currently going through Parliament — will give police and prosecutors more powers to disrupt gangs that send migrants on perilous journeys across one of the world's busiest shipping lanes. U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has said the crime gangs are a threat to global security and should be treated like terror networks. Since taking office a year ago, Starmer's centre-left Labour Party government has adopted powers to seize the assets of people-smugglers, beefed up U.K. border surveillance and increased law-enforcement cooperation with France and other countries to disrupt the journeys. Despite that, more than 25,000 people have reached Britain by boat so far this year, an increase of 50 per cent on the same period in 2024. Small boat crossings have become a potent political issue, fueled by pictures of smugglers piling migrants into overcrowded, leaky inflatable boats on the French coast. Opposition parties say the government's plans aren't working — though the government argues the problems built up during 14 years when the Conservative Party was in power, The Conservatives say Starmer should not have scrapped the previous government's contentious and expensive plan to send migrants arriving by boat on a one-way trip to Rwanda. 'This is a panicked attempt to look tough after months of doing nothing,' Conservative immigration spokesman Chris Philp said. The government says it will take time to clear a backlog of applications that has left thousands of migrants stuck in temporary accommodation — often hotels — without the right to work. The hotels have become flashpoints for tension, attracting protests fueled by a mix of local concern, misinformation and anti-immigrant agitation. Jill Lawless, The Associated Press
CTV News
a day ago
- CTV News
The U.S. said it had no choice but to deport them to a third country. Then it sent them home
Migrants deported months ago by the United States to El Salvador under the Trump administration's immigration crackdown arrive at Simon Bolívar International Airport in Maiquetia, Venezuela, Friday, July 18, 2025. (AP Photo/Ariana Cubillos) WASHINGTON — The Trump administration says that some serious criminals need to be deported to third countries because even their home countries won't accept them. But a review of recent cases shows that at least five men threatened with such a fate were sent to their native countries within weeks. U.S. President Donald Trump aims to deport millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally and his administration has sought to ramp up removals to third countries, including sending convicted criminals to South Sudan and Eswatini, formerly known as Swaziland, two sub-Saharan African nations. Immigrants convicted of crimes typically first serve their U.S. sentences before being deported. This appeared to be the case with the eight men deported to South Sudan and five to Eswatini, although some had been released years earlier. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said in June that third-country deportations allow them to deport people 'so uniquely barbaric that their own countries won't take them back.' Critics have countered that it's not clear the U.S. tried to return the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini to their home countries and that the deportations were unnecessarily cruel. Reuters found that at least five men threatened with deportation to Libya in May were sent to their home countries weeks later, according to interviews with two of the men, a family member and attorneys. After a U.S. judge blocked the Trump administration from sending them to Libya, two men from Vietnam, two men from Laos and a man from Mexico were all deported to their home nations. The deportations have not previously been reported. DHS did not comment on the removals. Reuters could not determine if their home countries initially refused to take them or why the U.S. tried to send them to Libya. DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin contested that the home countries of criminals deported to third countries were willing to take them back, but did not provide details on any attempts to return the five men home before they were threatened with deportation to Libya. 'If you come to our country illegally and break our laws, you could end up in CECOT, Alligator Alcatraz, Guantanamo Bay, or South Sudan or another third country,' McLaughlin said in a statement, referencing El Salvador's maximum-security prison and a detention centre in the subtropical Florida Everglades. Far from home DHS did not respond to a request for the number of third-country deportations since Trump took office on January 20, although there have been thousands to Mexico and hundreds to other countries. The eight men sent to South Sudan were from Cuba, Laos, Mexico, Myanmar, South Sudan and Vietnam, according to DHS. The man DHS said was from South Sudan had a deportation order to Sudan, according to a court filing. The five men sent to Eswatini were from Cuba, Jamaica, Laos, Vietnam and Yemen, according to DHS. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said the men deported to South Sudan and Eswatini were 'the worst of the worst' and included people convicted in the United States of child sex abuse and murder. 'American communities are safer with these heinous illegal criminals gone,' Jackson said in a statement. The Laos government did not respond to requests for comment regarding the men threatened with deportation to Libya and those deported to South Sudan and Eswatini. Vietnam's foreign ministry spokesperson said on July 17 that the government was verifying information regarding the South Sudan deportation but did not provide additional comment to Reuters. The government of Mexico did not comment. The Trump administration acknowledged in a May 22 court filing that the man from Myanmar had valid travel documents to return to his home country but he was deported to South Sudan anyway. DHS said the man had been convicted of sexual assault involving a victim mentally and physically incapable of resisting. Eswatini's government said on Tuesday that it was still holding the five migrants sent there in isolated prison units under the deal with the Trump administration. 'A very random outcome' The Supreme Court in June allowed the Trump administration to deport migrants to third countries without giving them a chance to show they could be harmed. But the legality of the removals is still being contested in a federal lawsuit in Boston, a case that could potentially wind its way back to the conservative-leaning high court. Critics say the removals aim to stoke fear among migrants and encourage them to 'self deport' to their home countries rather than be sent to distant countries they have no connection with. 'This is a message that you may end up with a very random outcome that you're going to like a lot less than if you elect to leave under your own steam,' said Michelle Mittelstadt, communications director for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. Internal U.S. immigration enforcement guidance issued in July said migrants could be deported to countries that had not provided diplomatic assurances of their safety in as little as six hours. While the administration has highlighted the deportations of convicted criminals to African countries, it has also sent asylum-seeking Afghans, Russians and others to Panama and Costa Rica. The Trump administration deported more than 200 Venezuelans accused of being gang members to El Salvador in March, where they were held in the country's CECOT prison without access to attorneys until they were released in a prisoner swap last month. More than 5,700 non-Mexican migrants have been deported to Mexico since Trump took office, according to Mexican government data, continuing a policy that began under former U.S. President Joe Biden. The fact that one Mexican man was deported to South Sudan and another threatened with deportation to Libya suggests that the Trump administration did not try to send them to their home countries, according to Trina Realmuto, executive director at the pro-immigrant National Immigration Litigation Alliance. 'Mexico historically accepts back its own citizens,' said Realmuto, one of the attorneys representing migrants in the lawsuit contesting third-country deportations. The eight men deported to South Sudan included Mexican national Jesus Munoz Gutierrez, who had served a sentence in the U.S. for second-degree murder and was directly taken into federal immigration custody afterward, according to Realmuto. Court records show Munoz stabbed and killed a roommate during a fight in 2004. When the Trump administration first initiated the deportation in late May, Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum said her government had not been informed. 'If he does want to be repatriated, then the United States would have to bring him to Mexico,' Sheinbaum said at the time. His sister, Guadalupe Gutierrez, said in an interview that she didn't understand why he was sent to South Sudan, where he is currently in custody. She said Mexico is trying to get her brother home. 'Mexico never rejected my brother,' Gutierrez said. 'Using us as a pawn' Immigration hardliners see the third-country removals as a way to deal with immigration offenders who can't easily be deported and could pose a threat to the U.S. public. 'The Trump administration is prioritizing the safety of American communities over the comfort of these deportees,' said Jessica Vaughan, policy director at the Center for Immigration Studies, which supports lower levels of immigration. The Trump administration in July pressed other African nations to take migrants and has asked the Pacific Islands nation of Palau, among others. Under U.S. law, federal immigration officials can deport someone to a country other than their place of citizenship when all other efforts are 'impracticable, inadvisable or impossible.' Immigration officials must first try to send an immigrant back to their home country, and if they fail, then to a country with which they have a connection, such as where they lived or were born. For a Lao man who was almost deported to Libya in early May, hearing about the renewed third-country deportations took him back to his own close call. In an interview from Laos granted on condition of anonymity because of fears for his safety, he asked why the U.S. was 'using us as a pawn?' His attorney said the man had served a prison sentence for a felony. Reuters could not establish what he was convicted of. He recalled officials telling him to sign his deportation order to Libya, which he refused, telling them he wanted to be sent to Laos instead. They told him he would be deported to Libya regardless of whether he signed or not, he said. DHS did not comment on the allegations. The man, who came to the United States in the early 1980s as a refugee when he was four years old, said he was now trying to learn the Lao language and adapt to his new life, 'taking it day by day.'
National Post
a day ago
- National Post
Adam Zivo: Media miss the mark on case of non-binary American fighting deportation from Canada
Earlier this month, a federal judge paused the deportation of Angel Jenkel, a non-binary American, after determining that the immigration officer evaluating their case failed to properly consider the Trump administration's recent transgender policies. The ruling was narrowly focused on procedural fairness and was agnostic about whether non-binary people actually face persecution in the United States. Nonetheless, some Canadian media outlets misleadingly implied that the judge had found that gender minorities are intolerably unsafe in the United States. Article content Article content While activists have celebrated Jenkel's story as a victory for LGBTQ rights, what we have here is a case study of poor journalism. Article content Article content Jenkel, a 24-year-old multimedia artist from Minnesota, arrived in Canada in August 2022 on a six-month visitor visa to spend time with their then-boyfriend, now common-law spouse, in Thunder Bay, Ont. During this visit, the spouse's epilepsy suddenly worsened, causing frequent grand mal seizures that led Jenkel to become his primary source of at-home care. Article content Jenkel told the Times Colonist this month that, although they had originally planned to leave before their visa expired in February 2023, they 'lost track of time' for two whole years due to their caregiving duties. Being the spouse of a Canadian, they could have applied for permanent residency during this period, but failed to do so. As such, the Canada Border Services Agency summoned Jenkel for an interview this February and issued a deportation order a month later. Article content Article content Jenkel subsequently asked for a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment (PRRA), which is a mechanism that allows individuals facing deportation to stay in Canada if they have a well-founded belief that they will face persecution, torture or other serious harms in their home country. Article content While a PRRA is not the same as a refugee claim, the two systems overlap considerably. Uniquely, a PRRA can grant protection to individuals who, despite not counting as refugees, face special personal dangers in their home country — e.g. in 2024, an applicant avoided deportation to El Salvador because gang members there had been targeting him. However, a PRRA may also grant protection to individuals who are found to meet the definition of a refugee. In this case, the applicant does not need to show that they have experienced any specific threats, as general persecution of their minority group is sufficiently dangerous. Article content Ultimately, an immigration officer determined that Jenkel could not demonstrate that they would face the general risks needed to justify refugee status, nor the personalized risks that would justify non-refugee protection. However, in making this determination, the officer made a grave procedural error.
