The Trump administration says it will not facilitate due process hearings for 252 Venezuelan migrants deported under the Alien Enemies Act, arguing the courts lack authority to compel further action.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Trump administration has formally refused to comply with a federal court order requiring due process for 252 Venezuelan migrants deported last year to a maximum-security prison in El Salvador, escalating a constitutional dispute over immigration authority that appears headed back to the Supreme Court.
In a new filing, the Justice Department said it will not carry out an order from U.S. District Judge James Boasberg directing the administration to “facilitate” legal proceedings for the deported migrants. The department’s position sets up a direct conflict between the executive branch and the federal judiciary and could trigger another high-profile appeal.
The Venezuelan nationals were deported in March 2025 under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act and flown out of the United States despite an emergency directive from Boasberg instructing the administration to halt the removals and turn the aircraft around mid-flight. The deportations prompted months of litigation that ultimately reached the Supreme Court in April.
The justices later ruled in the government’s favor on the administration’s authority to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. However, Boasberg issued a subsequent order in December requiring the government to provide a pathway for due process to the deported migrants. The judge outlined two options: returning the men to the United States for in-person hearings or facilitating constitutionally adequate hearings abroad.
The Justice Department rejected both options in its latest filing.
According to Fox News reporting, government attorneys argued that returning the migrants is legally impossible and poses national security risks, citing alleged gang affiliations, strained diplomatic relations with Venezuela, and instability following the U.S. capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro during a raid in Caracas. The department also dismissed the possibility of holding proceedings at U.S. facilities abroad, contending that the United States lacks jurisdiction to conduct habeas proceedings outside its territory and that such efforts would interfere with sensitive foreign policy considerations.
Justice Department lawyers said the administration does not believe it owes the deported migrants additional due process beyond what was already provided. The filing stated that if the court issues an injunction requiring further action, the government will immediately appeal and seek a stay from higher courts.
“If, over defendants’ vehement legal and practical objections, the Court issues an injunction, defendants intend to immediately appeal, and will seek a stay pending appeal from this Court (and, if necessary, from the D.C. Circuit),” the department said.
The administration argues that the president’s use of the Alien Enemies Act constitutes a national security determination that falls outside the proper scope of judicial review. Officials have maintained that immigration enforcement is an area where executive authority is historically broad and courts have traditionally shown deference.
In its filings, the administration has also pointed to past practices under previous presidents to support its position. During the Obama administration, the federal government relied heavily on expedited, nonjudicial removals. By 2012, roughly 75 percent of deportations occurred without a hearing before an immigration judge, according to data cited by the American Civil Liberties Union in a report on deportation practices.
The Trump administration contends that the current dispute reflects the same executive enforcement authority exercised in prior administrations and views court orders mandating specific due process mechanisms as an overreach into executive control of immigration policy.
Judge Boasberg has not yet ruled on the Justice Department’s refusal to comply, but the administration has signaled that any adverse decision will be swiftly appealed, setting the stage for another confrontation over the balance of power between the presidency and the federal courts.
Original article
Comments