In a dramatic ruling that could have sweeping implications for immigration enforcement under the Alien Enemies Act, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has sided with a group of Venezuelan nationals who were removed from the United States earlier this year under a Trump-era proclamation.
The plaintiffs—identified by the government as members of the notorious Tren de Aragua gang—allege they were denied even the most basic protections of due process. On Monday afternoon, Judge Boasberg granted their motion for summary judgment, certified their case as a class action, and flatly rejected the Trump administration’s defense.
The case, J.G.G. v. Trump, centers on the events of mid-March, when 252 Venezuelan men were abruptly removed from U.S. soil and flown to El Salvador. Once there, they were imprisoned at the infamous CECOT facility, a maximum-security site designed for high-risk inmates. Though the men have since been released and returned to Venezuela, they are challenging the legality of their removal, claiming it violated their constitutional rights.
Judge Boasberg agrees.
In a 43-page opinion, Boasberg outlines why the U.S. government still holds jurisdiction over the matter—even though the plaintiffs are no longer detained. He emphasizes that the men remain subject to the harsh legal consequences of being labeled alien enemies: exclusion from reentry into the U.S., forfeiture of property, and other legal penalties. In the court’s view, these lingering effects keep the case very much alive.
But the heart of Boasberg’s decision comes down to one principle: due process. Even if the Trump administration lawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act, Boasberg argues that the government failed to provide the plaintiffs with any meaningful opportunity to challenge their designation. No notice. No hearing. No time.
Citing both Supreme Court precedent and consistent rulings from lower courts, Boasberg concludes that removing these individuals within hours of the proclamation’s release—without so much as a warning—fails every test of constitutional fairness.
The detainees were never told why they were being removed, nor given any mechanism to contest their status. That, Boasberg states unequivocally, “does not pass muster.”
As a remedy, the court ordered the government to provide the plaintiffs with a “meaningful opportunity” to challenge both their TdA designation and the proclamation’s legal standing. That could mean returning the men to the United States—or offering a remote hearing that satisfies due process requirements. The administration has two weeks to propose how it intends to comply.
This case isn’t just about a plane ride to El Salvador. It’s about the enduring question of how far executive power can stretch when national security collides with civil liberties. And if Boasberg’s opinion is any indication, that question is far from settled.
