News For You

Federal District Judge Issues Another Ruling On Deported Illegal immigrants Case

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, chief judge of the D.C. District Court, issued a ruling Wednesday that reignited the long-smoldering battle between the federal judiciary and President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda. In J.G.G. v. Trump, Boasberg sided — at least partially — with a group of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members who had been removed from the U.S. under the Alien and Enemies Act.

His ruling allows the plaintiffs, all non-citizens, to challenge their deportation through habeas corpus, despite their alleged connections to one of the most violent transnational gangs in the Western Hemisphere.

Boasberg’s opinion opens with a rhetorical flourish, invoking Franz Kafka to describe the gang members’ situation — a literary nod not often seen in judicial writing and one that immediately raised eyebrows.

“CECOT Class members were entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removability,” Boasberg wrote, arguing that the government failed to provide basic due process. As a remedy, he ordered the administration to restore the plaintiffs’ ability to pursue habeas relief and ensure their cases are adjudicated as if proper procedures had been followed.

Boasberg went even further in warning against unchecked executive authority, stating that without judicial intervention, “the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action.” He cited Justice Sotomayor’s past opinion in a similar case involving an MS-13 suspect to bolster the legal precedent.

This case stems from a dramatic series of deportations in March 2025, when the Trump administration — invoking a presidential proclamation under the Alien and Enemies Act — loaded planeloads of suspected Tren de Aragua gang members onto flights bound for El Salvador’s notorious terrorism detention center (CECOT).

The removals were fast-tracked, and civil liberties groups, including the ACLU and Democracy Forward, raced to court to stop the flights — some of which were reportedly mid-air when legal filings hit the docket.

Though Wednesday’s ruling affirms the plaintiffs’ right to challenge their deportation, it is limited in scope. It applies only to those removed on March 15 and 16, 2025, and only those sent to El Salvador under the specific presidential proclamation citing a national “invasion” by Tren de Aragua.

This isn’t Boasberg’s first clash with the Trump administration — not by a long shot. He’s issued rulings against multiple Trump-era immigration policies, fueling criticism from conservatives who question why he is consistently assigned such high-profile cases. His latest ruling has already triggered calls for an appeal, and RedState contributor Susie Moore speculated that even the plaintiffs may appeal, frustrated that Boasberg didn’t grant broader relief.

Meanwhile, Republicans in Congress are moving to limit judicial overreach with the recently passed No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (NORRA), a bill inspired in part by Boasberg’s judicial track record. NORRA aims to constrain the power of individual district judges to issue nationwide injunctions — a power increasingly seen as a political tool in the hands of unelected federal jurists.

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To Top
$(".comment-click-5667").on("click", function(){ $(".com-click-id-5667").show(); $(".disqus-thread-5667").show(); $(".com-but-5667").hide(); }); // The slider being synced must be initialized first $('.post-gallery-bot').flexslider({ animation: "slide", controlNav: false, animationLoop: true, slideshow: false, itemWidth: 80, itemMargin: 10, asNavFor: '.post-gallery-top' }); $('.post-gallery-top').flexslider({ animation: "fade", controlNav: false, animationLoop: true, slideshow: false, prevText: "<", nextText: ">", sync: ".post-gallery-bot" }); });