The Trump administration has controversially deported hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador, despite an order from a federal judge temporarily halting these actions due to a centuries-old wartime declaration. This move has stirred significant debate, as flights deporting the immigrants were already underway when the judge’s ruling was issued.
U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg on Saturday paused the deportation proceedings, yet two planes full of immigrants—one en route to El Salvador and the other to Honduras—were airborne at the time of his ruling. Although Judge Boasberg verbally requested the planes be returned, his written order did not reflect this directive. Consequently, the flights proceeded as scheduled.
On Sunday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt addressed concerns of non-compliance with the court’s ruling, stating that the administration acted lawfully and that the judge’s order was invalid as deportation had commenced. The focus of this action was a gang known as Tren de Aragua, which President Trump targeted in a recent proclamation.
The Department of Justice, appealing Boasberg’s injunction, indicated they would refrain from utilizing Trump’s proclamation for future deportations if the ruling remains unchallenged. Nevertheless, Trump’s supporters found the resulting deportations to be a triumph.
Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who agreed to house about 300 deported immigrants, shared his delight on social media regarding the court’s decision, drawing parallels with a statement by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who similarly celebrated the transfer of gang members to El Salvador.
Legal scholars like Steve Vladeck of Georgetown University pointed out that, while the administration didn’t technically defy the court, it did undermine the intent behind Judge Boasberg’s directive. This incident may prompt courts in the future to craft orders with greater precision to avoid misinterpretation.
The root of this controversial action lies in Trump invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a law historically reserved for wartime and invoked rarely in U.S. history. Past uses include during the War of 1812 and WWII. This act permits a president to deport foreigners during a state of war, affecting existing protections for those immigrants.
Venezuela’s government commented sternly on Trump’s invocation of the Act, labeling it a callback to some of history’s darkest times. Tren de Aragua, originally birthed from a notorious Venezuelan prison, has been a focus of Trump’s targeting efforts in his campaign rhetoric.
Despite these claims, the administration has not provided evidence to confirm that those deported were gang members or had committed any U.S. crimes. Furthermore, other deported individuals included members of the MS-13 gang, also sent to El Salvador.
El Salvador’s government released video footage showing deported individuals, shackled and escorted by security forces, being transferred to a notorious prison facility. This move is central to President Bukele’s strategy to curb violence through stringent law enforcement measures.
This deportation process began under Trump’s eagerness to expel those alleged to belong to Tren de Aragua, with Venezuelans suddenly facing transfer to Texas for deportation flights. Human rights advocates, such as Adam Isacson from the Washington Office on Latin America, voiced concerns over the sweeping nature of these deportations.
Legal actions halted the deportations following lawsuits filed on behalf of Venezuelans in Texas fearing false criminal accusations. Judge Boasberg halted their deportations, emphasizing the law’s past applications only during declared wars, thus suggesting Trump might have misapplied his authority.
Deportation suspensions are currently in place for up to 14 days, with further legal hearings scheduled. Judge Boasberg highlighted the constitutional risks these deportations might pose, stressing the need for judicial review before irreparable harm is done by potentially unconstitutional actions.
The legal dispute continues, with broader implications about immigration and executive power in focus, presenting a significant legal benchmark for future judicial and governmental actions.
