A federal judge in Washington, D.C., ordered the Trump administration on Thursday to arrange the return of hundreds of Venezuelan migrants who were deported to El Salvador after being identified as suspected members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that the administration must pay for airfare and provide travel documents to facilitate the migrants' return, though he specified the individuals would be taken into immigration custody upon arriving in the United States.
The ruling has reignited debate over the boundaries of executive authority in immigration enforcement and the role of the judiciary in second-guessing decisions made to protect national security.
The case traces back to March 2025, when President Donald Trump invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to expedite the removal of Venezuelan migrants suspected of belonging to the TdA gang. The rarely used wartime statute gave the administration a legal pathway for swift deportations outside standard removal proceedings.
Boasberg, an Obama appointee, responded that same month by issuing an order that blocked the administration from proceeding with those deportations. The legal standoff quickly escalated to the nation's highest court.
In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to lift Boasberg's block, Breitbart reports. The justices found that the migrants had improperly filed their legal challenges in Washington, D.C., when the proper venue was Texas. That decision cleared the path for the administration to carry out the removals.
Following the Supreme Court's ruling, hundreds of Venezuelan migrants suspected of TdA ties were deported to El Salvador. The precise number and timeline of the removals have not been publicly specified.
On Thursday, Boasberg issued his latest order directing the administration to bring those individuals back to U.S. soil. In his ruling, the judge wrote:
"It is up to the Government to remedy the wrong that it perpetrated here and to provide a means for doing so. Were it otherwise, the Government could simply remove people from the United States without providing any process and then, once they were in a foreign country, deny them any right to return for a hearing or opportunity to present their case from abroad."
The judge further stated that "this situation would never have arisen had the Government simply afforded Plaintiffs their constitutional rights before initially deporting them." That assertion places the blame entirely on the executive branch — a framing that overlooks the fact that the Supreme Court itself cleared the deportations after finding the initial legal challenge was filed in the wrong court.
The Trump administration has agreed to accept the migrants back into immigration custody if they arrive at a U.S. airport or border station on their own. However, Department of Justice attorneys have opposed providing letters or documents that would help the deported individuals board commercial flights bound for the United States.
That distinction matters. There is a meaningful difference between allowing someone to return through proper channels and actively funding and facilitating the reentry of individuals the government deported precisely because they were suspected of gang affiliation. Boasberg's order effectively requires the latter.
The administration used the Alien Enemies Act — a statute that has survived more than two centuries of constitutional scrutiny — as its legal foundation for the removals. The question of whether a single district court judge can order the executive branch to reverse a completed deportation, particularly one the Supreme Court permitted to proceed, sits at the heart of a constitutional tension that may well return to the high court.
The individuals at the center of this case are suspected members of one of South America's most violent transnational criminal organizations. They entered the country unlawfully and were removed under a federal statute the Supreme Court allowed the administration to invoke. Whether they deserve additional process is a legitimate legal question — but so is whether an Obama-appointed district judge should be the one compelling the executive branch to fly them back at taxpayer expense.
The DOJ has not indicated whether it will appeal Boasberg's latest order. Given the administration's track record of contesting judicial overreach on immigration matters, further legal action appears likely.
For now, the order stands, and the constitutional tug of war over who controls the nation's deportation authority continues.
