The Supreme Court on Saturday blocked, for now, the deportations of any Venezuelans held in northern Texas under an 18th century wartime law.
In a brief order, the court directed the Trump administration not to remove Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet Detention Center “until further order of this court.”
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
The high court acted in an emergency appeal from the American Civil Liberties Union contending that immigration authorities appeared to be moving to restart removals under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798. The Supreme Court had said earlier in April that deportations could proceed only if those about to be removed had a chance to argue their case in court and were given “a reasonable time” to contest their pending removals.
“We are deeply relieved that the Court has temporarily blocked the removals. These individuals were in imminent danger of spending the rest of their lives in a brutal Salvadoran prison without ever having had any due process,” ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt said in an email.
On Friday, two federal judges refused to step in as lawyers for the men launched a desperate legal campaign to prevent their deportation, even as one judge said the case raised legitimate concerns. Early Saturday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals also refused to issue an order protecting the detainees from being deported.
The administration is expected to return to the Supreme Court quickly in an effort to persuade the justices to lift their temporary order.
The ACLU had already sued to block deportations of two Venezuelans held in the Bluebonnet facility and sought an order barring removals of any immigrants in the region under the Alien Enemies Act.
In an emergency filing early Friday, the ACLU warned that immigration authorities were accusing other Venezuelan men held there of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang, which would make them subject to President Donald Trump’s use of the act.
The act has only been invoked three previous times in U.S. history, most recently during World War II to hold Japanese-American civilians in internment camps. The Trump administration contended it gave them power to swiftly remove immigrants they identified as members of the gang, regardless of their immigration status.
Following the unanimous high court order on April 9, federal judges in Colorado, New York and southern Texas promptly issued orders barring removal of detainees under the AEA until the administration provides a process for them to make claims in court.
But there had been no such order issued in the area of Texas that covers Bluebonnet, which is located 24 miles north of Abilene in the far northern end of the state.
U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix, a Trump appointee, this week declined to bar the administration from removing the two men identified in the ACLU lawsuit because Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed sworn declarations that they would not be immediately deported. He also balked at issuing a broader order prohibiting removal of all Venezuelans in the area under the act because he said removals hadn’t started yet.
But the ACLU’s Friday filing included sworn declarations from three separate immigration lawyers who said their clients in Bluebonnet were given paperwork indicating they were members of Tren de Aragua and could be deported by Saturday. In one case, immigration lawyer Karene Brown said her client, identified by initials, was told to sign papers in English even though the client only spoke Spanish.
“ICE informed F.G.M. that these papers were coming from the President, and that he will be deported even if he did not sign it,” Brown wrote.
Gelernt said in a Friday evening hearing before District Judge James E. Boasberg in Washington, D.C., that the administration initially moved Venezuelans to its south Texas immigration facility for deportation. But since a judge banned deportations in that area, it has funneled them to the Bluebonnet facility, where no such order exists. He said witnesses reported the men were being loaded on buses Friday evening to be taken to the airport.
With Hendrix not agreeing to the ACLU’s request for an emergency order, the group turned to Boasberg, who initially halted deportations in March. The Supreme Court ruled the orders against deportation could only come from judges in jurisdictions where immigrants were held, which Boasberg said made him powerless Friday.
“I’m sympathetic to everything you’re saying,” Boasberg told Gelernt. “I just don’t think I have the power to do anything about it.”
Boasberg this week found there’s probable cause that the Trump administration committed criminal contempt by disobeying his initial deportation ban. He was concerned that the paper that ICE was giving those held did not make clear they had a right to challenge their removal in court, which he believed the Supreme Court mandated.
Drew Ensign, an attorney for the Justice Department, disagreed, saying that people slated for deportation would have a “minimum” of 24 hours to challenge their removal in court. He said no flights were scheduled for Friday night and he was unaware of any Saturday, but the Department of Homeland Security said it reserved the right to remove people then.
ICE said it would not comment on the litigation.
Also Friday, a Massachusetts judge made permanent his temporary ban on the administration deporting immigrants who have exhausted their appeals to countries other than their home countries unless they are informed of their destination and given a chance to object if they’d face torture or death there.
Some Venezuelans subject to Trump’s Alien Enemies Act have been sent to El Salvador and housed in its notorious main prison.
More at:
Federal judge Boasberg denies emergency request to block ‘imminent’ deportation flights under Alien Enemies Act
“I just don’t really see how you’re asking me to do anything different from what the Supreme Court said I couldn’t do.”
US District Judge James Boasberg denied an emergency request from lawyers for alleged Venezuelan gang members Thursday seeking to block “imminent” deportations under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing suspected Tren de Aragua gang members being detained in Texas, had asked Boasberg to issue a temporary restraining order requiring 30 days’ notice from the Trump administration before any of their clients are deported under the 18th-century law after learning the removal notices had recently been issued to detainees.
“I’m sympathetic to your conundrum, but I don’t think I have the power to do anything about it,” Boasberg said during an emergency hearing in the District Court for Washington, DC.
The judge noted that a Supreme Court ruling earlier this month, which lifted his pause on the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act, determined that if “detainees are confined in Texas … venue is improper in the District of Columbia.”
Boasberg also received assurances from the Trump administration that no deportation flights under the rarely used wartime law would take place Friday night.
“I’ve also been told that there are no flights tonight, and that the people I spoke to were not aware of any plans for flights tomorrow,” Justice Department official Drew Ensign told the court.
After a recess, Ensign clarified that after contacting the Department of Homeland Security, he was “told to say that they reserve the right to remove people tomorrow.”
“It is very concerning, but at this point I just don’t think I have the ability to grant relief to the plaintiffs,” Boasberg said. “I just don’t really see how you’re asking me to do anything different from what the Supreme Court said I couldn’t do.”
The judge issued an order formally denying the ACLU’s request after the hearing.
The ACLU has separately petitioned the Supreme Court and a federal appeals court seeking the same temporary restraining order.
“Late last night and early today, Plaintiffs learned that the government has begun giving notices of removal to class members, in English only, which do not say how much time individuals have to contest their removal or even how to do so,” the ACLU’s motion to the DC district court stated.
“And officers last night told class members that they will be removed within 24 hours, which expires as early as this afternoon,” the filing continued.
“Upon information and belief, individuals have already been loaded on to buses.”
The ACLU also cited a Friday night ABC News report indicating that Plans for more deportations under the Alien Enemies Act are underway and flights are “imminent,” according to a US official.
“We are not going to reveal the details of counter terrorism operations, but we are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling,” Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told The Post.
Boasberg blocked President Trump from invoking the rarely used wartime law last month but his temporary restraining order was lifted by the Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision on April 7.
What do you think? Post a comment.
The high court ruled that the Trump administration could resume deportations of alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act so long as detainees can challenge their removal.
The Supreme Court ordered that anyone the Trump administration is seeking to deport under the Alien Enemies Act must be afforded notice “within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek [a court hearing] in the proper venue before such removal occurs.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing the suspected Venezuelan gang members slated for deportation, claims the Trump administration has refused to provide any information about the removal notices their clients allegedly received.
They fear their clients will be sent to El Salvador’s notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) without an opportunity to challenge their removal.
“Without this Court’s immediate intervention, dozens or hundreds of class members may be removed to CECOT within hours — all without any real opportunity to seek judicial review, in defiance of due process and the Supreme Court’s order,” the motion stated.
The ACLU said the migrants currently facing deportation are being held at Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas.
The group said the district court in the Northern District of Texas, where Bluebonnet is located, has refused to act on an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order, which is why it is petitioning the court in DC.
“The Court should immediately issue the temporary restraining order requiring the government to give each class member and class counsel 30 days’ notice, in both English and Spanish, before taking any action to remove a class member from the United States,” the ACLU demanded.
Trump invoked the Alien Enemies Act for the first time since World War II last month to quickly deport alleged Tren de Aragua members to the El Salvador megaprison.
Trump, 78, considers the gang an invading force, whose presence in the US grew under the Biden administration’s lax immigration and border policies.
More at:
Judge blocks administration from deporting noncitizens to 3rd countries without due process
It blocks removing noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin.
A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from deporting noncitizens to countries other than their place of origin without due process.
U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy issued an injunction that bars the Trump administration from deporting any noncitizen to a country not explicitly mentioned in their order or removal without first allowing them to raise concerns about their safety.
“Defendants argue that the United States may send a deportable alien to a country not of their origin, not where an immigration judge has ordered, where they may be immediately tortured and killed, without providing that person any opportunity to tell the deporting authorities that they face grave danger or death because of such a deportation,” Judge Murphy wrote.
“All nine sitting justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Assistant Solicitor General of the United States, Congress, common sense, basic decency, and this Court all disagree.”
The ruling throws a roadblock in the Trump administration’s policy of removing noncitizens to countries like El Salvador, Honduras, or Panama, even if the noncitizens lack an order of removal to those countries.
The Trump administration last month invoked the Alien Enemies Act to deport two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members to the CECOT mega-prison in El Salvador with little-to-no due process.
Judge Murphy noted that the Trump administration officials “have applied and will continue to apply the alleged policy of removing aliens to third countries without notice and an opportunity to be heard on fear-based claims — in other words, without due process.”
President Donald Trump listens to a question from a reporter as he signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House, April 17, 2025, in Washington. Alex Brandon/AP
He said his order prevents the irreparable harm of noncitizens being sent to countries where they might face persecution, torture, or death without having the chance to challenge their removal in court.
“The irreparable harm factor likewise weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor. Here, the threatened harm is clear and simple: persecution, torture, and death. It is hard to imagine harm more irreparable,” he wrote.
Judge Murphy’s order requires that the Trump administration provide noncitizens written notice before they are removed to a third country, as well as a “meaningful opportunity” to raise concerns about their safety, including providing at least 15 days to reopen their immigration proceedings.
He also certified a class — meaning the order applies not only to the plaintiffs in the case, but also any noncitizen with a final order of removal.
Separately, Judge Murphy is considering whether the Trump administration violated his recent temporary restraining order when it removed at least three men to El Salvador without allowing them to raise concerns about their safety. He is still considering that issue.
More at:
When Judges Become Prosecutors: The Curious Case of Judge Boasberg
In a republic governed by laws and not by men, the judiciary’s role is to interpret the law, not invent it. Yet in the curious and increasingly troubling case presided over by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the distinction between interpretation and invention has collapsed into something that more closely resembles judicial activism on stilts. In his April injunctions halting deportation flights under President Trump’s lawful immigration crackdown, and his subsequent finding of criminal contempt against Department of Justice officials, Boasberg has not merely tested the outer limits of judicial power, he has bulldozed past them.
Let us begin with the most fundamental problem: Judge Boasberg should not have had this case in the first place. The class action challenge, filed by five Venezuelan men detained for removal under President Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, should have been litigated in the jurisdictions where the plaintiffs were physically held. This is not a matter of procedural nicety. It is a matter of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court made this point abundantly clear in its 5-4 decision on April 7, 2025, effectively vacating Boasberg’s preliminary injunctions. The Court ruled that the District of Columbia was not the proper venue. That should have ended the matter. Yet, remarkably, Boasberg refused to acknowledge the decision as anything more than a temporal inconvenience.
Nine days later, on April 16, Boasberg struck again. Citing the original injunctions as binding at the time of the flights, he found probable cause to hold DOJ officials in criminal contempt. That decision, even if technically permissible within the narrow confines of Rule 42 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, was nevertheless legally indefensible and constitutionally grotesque. His injunctions had been vacated. His jurisdiction disclaimed. His findings rebuked. And yet he now threatens prosecution? One begins to wonder whether this is a legal proceeding or a one-man vendetta dressed in black robes.
To understand the procedural mechanics, Rule 42 does allow a federal judge to initiate criminal contempt proceedings and, if the Department of Justice declines to prosecute, to appoint a private attorney to do so. This occurred most notably in the controversial case of Steven Donziger, an environmental lawyer found in contempt after refusing to comply with court orders. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute, prompting the presiding judge to appoint private counsel. Though challenged as unconstitutional under the Appointments Clause, the Second Circuit upheld the process, and the Supreme Court declined review.
Fine. The machinery exists. But what is legal is not always just, and what is possible is not always permissible in a constitutional order. Boasberg, who would preside over his own contempt proceeding after appointing his own prosecutor to target executive branch officials, embodies precisely the kind of self-referential, self-aggrandizing judicial authority the Framers warned against. The Founders knew from bitter colonial experience that a judge who acts as both adjudicator and instigator is no judge at all.
More disturbing still is the manner in which Boasberg came to control the case. The procedural route by which this matter was assigned to him has raised eyebrows among seasoned court-watchers and constitutional scholars alike. It appears less the product of random judicial assignment and more the result of deliberate forum-shopping by sympathetic parties seeking a reliably activist hand. If these suspicions are confirmed, they would render the entire proceeding suspect and potentially void.
It is a foundational tenet of the American legal system that justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. When that principle is imperiled, especially by those entrusted with its…
Yet Boasberg remains undeterred. He has shown neither humility in the face of a Supreme Court rebuke nor caution in wielding the extraordinary power of criminal contempt. His insistence that the administration “willfully disregarded” his order ignores the fact that the order itself was unlawfully issued, as affirmed by the nation’s highest court. To claim jurisdiction over contempt proceedings after one’s own jurisdiction has been voided is not merely unorthodox, it is incoherent. This is not justice. This is jurisprudential nihilism.
Let us consider the implications. If Boasberg proceeds, the Department of Justice has two clear and compelling responses. First, it should immediately move to have Boasberg recuse himself from any contempt trial on the grounds that he is both a witness and a party to the disputed conduct. Any fair proceeding requires a neutral arbiter. Boasberg, having issued the contested orders and declared the conduct criminal, has disqualified himself. His continued presence on the bench would amount to a judicial kangaroo court.
Second, if Boasberg refuses to recuse, President Trump should exercise his constitutional power of pardon. The pardon exists for precisely such occasions—when the justice system is weaponized for political ends and when good men are threatened with imprisonment for doing their duty. The President need not permit executive officers to be dragged through politicized show trials orchestrated by judges who overstep their constitutional bounds.
We are witnessing something more than mere judicial activism. We are witnessing a breach in the separation of powers. Federal judges are not meant to run immigration policy from the bench. They are not meant to assign themselves cases of national significance. And they are certainly not meant to prosecute executive officials for enforcing duly enacted laws, especially after their own rulings have been vacated.
Judge Boasberg has gone far beyond his remit. His injunctions were defective in law and suspect in origin. His contempt finding is an affront to due process and an insult to the authority of the Supreme Court. His threatened prosecution, if allowed to proceed, will stand as a dark mark on the federal judiciary.
In Federalist No. 78, Alexander Hamilton wrote that the judiciary “has neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” Boasberg has forgotten this. He has substituted will for judgment, and force for reason. If allowed to continue, his conduct will do lasting damage to the integrity of the federal courts.
It is time for restraint. It is time for accountability. And it is time to remind the judiciary that it is not above the Constitution, nor immune from its constraints. Power must remain tethered to law, and those who untether it must be brought back to shore.
More at:
More Stories
Trump’s Beijing trip is looking as successful as anyone could’ve hoped
A major watchdog says data centers are wreaking havoc on North America’s power grid
Next L.A. Mayoral Debate Canceled After Karen Bass, Nithya Raman Pull Out