Judge Orders Due Process for Venezuelans Deported Under Alien Enemies Act

Judge Orders Due Process for Venezuelans Deported Under Alien Enemies Act

2025-12-23 politics

Washington, Tuesday, 23 December 2025.
A federal judge ruled the Trump administration violated due process by deporting Venezuelans to a Salvadoran megaprison under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, ordering officials to facilitate their potential return or legal hearings by January 5.

Judicial Intervention Amid Media Controversy

This judicial intervention arrives amidst a heated media controversy, following reports that CBS News leadership suppressed a 60 Minutes segment investigating these specific deportations (see previous coverage: https://wsnext.com/70768ba-CBS-News-Editorial-standards/). While editorial disputes focused on the political optics of the story, the U.S. District Court has now validated the legal gravity of the situation. On Monday, December 22, Judge James Boasberg ruled that the Trump administration denied due process to 137 Venezuelan men deported in March under the Alien Enemies Act, ordering the government to facilitate their potential return or provide legal hearings by January 5, 2026 [1][2][7].

The Mandate: Return or Due Process

The ruling presents a stark ultimatum to the executive branch. Judge Boasberg determined that even if the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was properly invoked to target the Tren de Aragua gang, the designated individuals were entitled to a “meaningful opportunity” to contest that classification before expulsion [1][2]. Instead, the court found that the plaintiffs were loaded onto planes without notice, preventing them from challenging evidence that in some cases relied merely on tattoos referencing sports teams or the Three Kings Day celebration as proof of gang affiliation [1][6]. “Our law requires no less,” Boasberg wrote, rejecting the government’s attempt to bypass judicial review [3][7].

The Path from El Salvador to Venezuela

The trajectory of these deportees highlights the complex geopolitical web woven by the administration’s immigration strategy. Following their removal from the U.S. in March 2025, the men were detained in El Salvador’s Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a facility described by human rights organizations as a site of arbitrary detention and “constant beatings” [7]. Despite administration arguments that El Salvador held “complete discretion” over the detainees, Judge Boasberg cited evidence that Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem had foreknowledge of their transfer to the prison, indicating the U.S. maintained effective control over their fate [4]. In July 2025, the group was transferred again, this time to Venezuela as part of a prisoner swap for detained Americans [2][7].

Constitutional Showdown and Contempt

The court’s mandate is complicated by the administration’s combative stance toward judicial oversight in this case. Judge Boasberg is concurrently managing a contempt inquiry regarding allegations that officials willfully defied his initial orders to halt the March deportation flights [3][5]. Testimony from whistleblower Erez Reuveni, a former Justice Department attorney, alleges that senior official Emil Bove—now a federal appeals court judge—suggested the department should tell the courts “f— you” if they attempted to interfere with the operation [4]. While the contempt proceedings are currently paused pending an appeal, the January 5 deadline forces an immediate decision: the administration must either propose a logistical plan to bring the men back to the U.S. for hearings or establish a remote process that satisfies constitutional due process requirements [4][7].

Future Implications

As the deadline approaches, the Department of Justice is expected to appeal the ruling, continuing a legal battle that tests the limits of the 18th-century Alien Enemies Act in modern immigration enforcement [3]. For the deportees now in Venezuela, the order represents a critical, if uncertain, opportunity to remove terrorist designations that currently bar them from seeking asylum or legal status in the United States [1][6].

Sources


Immigration Policy Executive Power