U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has ordered the federal government to arrange, and pay for, the return of a small group of Venezuelan migrants who were flown to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT megaprison last year and later transferred to third countries. The ruling is the latest twist in an increasingly bitter legal fight over whether the administration used an 18th century wartime law to remove people without enough notice or a real chance to argue their case. Attorneys say the decision currently applies to a limited set of former detainees who have since left Venezuela and now want to come back to the United States to press their claims.
In a sharply worded written opinion, Boasberg scolded the government for what he called stonewalling, writing that the administration’s responses “essentially told the Court to pound sand.” He ordered officials to issue “boarding letters” and cover airfare for anyone in a third country who wants to return to challenge their removals, according to News4JAX.
The case stems from hurried operations in March, when the administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act to move people it said were tied to the criminal group Tren de Aragua. Reporting at the time showed that flights left Texas while judges were still considering emergency relief requests, raising pointed questions about whether detainees had any meaningful opportunity to contest their removals, per The Washington Post.
Human rights groups have documented harsh conditions at CECOT that helped shape the court’s worries. Eyewitness accounts and interviews describe beatings, forced head shavings, long stretches of incommunicado confinement and sharply limited medical care. Those findings, laid out in a joint report by Human Rights Watch and partner organizations, fueled lawyers’ and judges’ warnings about the risks of sending people to the facility.
Complicating the lawsuit, more than 250 of the men once held at CECOT were flown to Venezuela in a July prisoner swap that also secured the release of U.S. detainees. That deal scattered potential plaintiffs and made basic tasks like staying in touch and arranging legal steps significantly harder, according to reporting by Reuters.
What The Order Requires
Boasberg directed the government to provide boarding letters, return passports and identification documents that had been turned over to Salvadoran authorities, and make “good faith efforts” to retrieve any paperwork needed for returnees to enter U.S. ports of entry. He also made clear that anyone flown or paroled back into the United States may be placed in immigration custody for the length of their proceedings, while still keeping the ability to seek habeas relief, as detailed by CBS News.
Lee Gelernt of the ACLU, who represents the plaintiffs, said the ruling “began the process of giving these men their right to challenge their removal.” He told the court that his team has so far reached only a small number of former detainees who are now in third countries. Boasberg gave plaintiffs’ counsel until Feb. 27 to identify which men want to travel on their own and which want the government to fly them back for proceedings, according to CBS News.
Next Steps And Timing
The judge ordered the government to file a status report by March 13 explaining how and when it plans to transport any plaintiffs who seek to return from third countries, and to update the court on the feasibility of returning plaintiffs who remain in Venezuela, per Good Morning America. Any effort to bring people back could trigger a fresh round of custody and removal decisions, diplomatic consultations and likely appeals from the administration.
The order does not end the case. Instead, it reopens a narrow path for some men to pursue habeas claims while setting up a long legal and logistical slog ahead. The unresolved questions are substantial: whether the government will fully comply, how many former detainees will actually choose to return and how courts will juggle due process concerns against foreign affairs and enforcement arguments. More filings, and almost certainly more appellate fights, are on the way as both sides test the edges of presidential power and the remedies federal courts are willing to impose.
