U.S. Appeals Court Upholds Block on Trump Administration’s Deportation of Venezuelan Migrants

  In a significant legal setback for the Trump administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on Wednesday upheld a temporary injunction preventing the deportation of certain Venezuelan migrants under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The ruling reinforces judicial oversight over executive authority, particularly in matters involving national security and immigration enforcement.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in favor of maintaining U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s initial block on deportations. The dissenting opinion came from U.S. Circuit Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee. The ruling challenges the administration’s March 15 invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to facilitate the expedited removal of individuals allegedly affiliated with the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

The act, a rarely used legal provision best known for authorizing internment during World War II, was leveraged by President Trump to bypass conventional deportation protocols. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) swiftly filed a legal challenge, prompting Boasberg to halt the deportations on the same day.

Despite the ruling, the administration proceeded with the deportation of 238 Venezuelan migrants aboard two flights already en route to El Salvador, where they were transferred to the country’s high-security “Terrorism Confinement Center.” The move has sparked intense legal and human rights scrutiny.

DHS Secretary Noem’s Visit to El Salvador’s Mega-Prison

As the court’s decision unfolded, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem visited the Salvadoran facility housing the deported Venezuelans. According to media pool reports, Noem toured the prison, observing detainees held in sweltering conditions, with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius).

At one point, Noem approached cells containing dozens of shirtless detainees, some bearing tattoos, who silently observed the delegation. Upon her departure from a detention barracks, a sudden outburst of noise emerged from the inmates, though the exact words were unclear. The prisoners reportedly spend most of their time confined to their cells, with only brief periods allotted for exercise or medical visits.

Noem, a staunch advocate of President Trump’s immigration policies, also held discussions with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele. The U.S. and El Salvador signed an updated security cooperation agreement to facilitate intelligence sharing on criminal fugitives between the two nations. Noem later described the memorandum as an essential step in bolstering cross-border security.

Judicial Concerns Over Due Process and Executive Authority

A central issue in the legal challenge is the Trump administration’s classification of deported individuals as gang members without affording them due process. Family members and legal representatives of several deportees dispute these claims, including that of a Venezuelan professional soccer player and youth coach, who was allegedly misidentified due to a Real Madrid-inspired crown tattoo.

Writing for the majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Patricia Millett, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, expressed grave concerns over the lack of judicial review before deportation. “Nazis received better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act than has happened here,” Millett remarked during a hearing on Monday, criticizing the government’s failure to provide detainees with an opportunity to contest their alleged gang affiliations.

The Trump administration’s attorney, Drew Ensign, swiftly rejected the analogy, stating, “We certainly dispute the Nazi comparison.”

U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, also raised concerns over the administration’s legal justification, noting that the presence of Tren de Aragua members in the U.S. does not necessarily constitute an “act of war” as defined by the Alien Enemies Act. “An invasion is a military affair, not one of migration,” she wrote in her ruling.

Potential Supreme Court Review

Judge Walker, in his dissent, argued that blocking the deportations could irreparably harm U.S. diplomatic and national security operations. He also suggested that the case should have been filed in Texas, where the migrants were detained, rather than in Washington, D.C.

With the appeals court’s ruling standing, the Trump administration may seek an expedited review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which currently holds a 6-3 conservative majority. If the administration pursues further legal action, the case could set a significant precedent regarding executive authority in immigration enforcement.

Meanwhile, Judge Boasberg is reviewing whether the Trump administration violated his initial ruling by proceeding with deportation flights after his injunction was issued.

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt welcomed the appellate court’s decision, stating, “This ruling prevents the immediate removal of hundreds of individuals without due process to a prison notorious for its harsh conditions.”

As legal battles continue, the case underscores the ongoing tensions between the executive branch and the judiciary over immigration policy, national security, and the rights of non-citizens facing deportation.

Reporting by Ted Hesson in Washington and Luc Cohen in New York; additional contributions by Kanishka Singh. Edited by Noeleen Walder, Mary Milliken, Bill Berkrot, Daniel Wallis, Alistair Bell, and Deepa Babington.