Illegal immigrants from Venezuela, once seeking asylum in America, now languish in Maduro’s custody after a controversial deportation saga.
Fox News reported that in March 2025, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to deport over 250 Venezuelans to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison, yet the administration defied the order.
These migrants, later sent to Venezuela in a prisoner swap, are at the heart of a legal firestorm. Boasberg’s Thursday hearing demanded answers from the Justice Department about their fate.
Boasberg’s March 15 ruling slammed the use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act as a deportation tool, calling it a due process violation.
The Supreme Court twice backed him up, labeling the deportations unconstitutional. Yet, the Trump team shipped the migrants to El Salvador anyway, raising questions about executive overreach.
Despite Boasberg’s order, the migrants landed in CECOT, described by ACLU lawyer Lee Gelernt as a “torture chamber.” Gelernt’s claim that the migrants are “thrilled” to be out of CECOT rings hollow when they’re now under Maduro’s thumb. Progressive lawyers love dramatic flourishes, but they sidestep the chaos of unchecked migration.
Last week, these 252 Venezuelans were transferred from El Salvador to Venezuela in a deal brokered by the U.S. The Justice Department’s Tiberius Davis argued the U.S. lacks “constructive custody” over them, a legal dodge that smells of bureaucratic buck-passing. If America orchestrated the swap, shouldn’t it bear some responsibility?
Boasberg, undeterred, is pushing for contempt proceedings, citing the administration’s “willful disregard” of his March ruling.
Whistleblower Erez Reuveni’s statements bolster the case, exposing internal defiance. The judge’s persistence is admirable, but his Kafka-quoting, 69-page ruling feels like a lecture from an ivory tower.
The prisoner exchange began when Maduro contacted El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, with the U.S. mediating due to tensions between the two nations.
Ten American prisoners were freed from Venezuela, routed through El Salvador, and returned home. The Justice Department uses this to claim clean hands, but the optics of trading asylum-seekers for Americans stink.
Gelernt, representing the migrants, told reporters it’s “remarkable” the government won’t bring them back after a constitutional violation.
His 30 years of experience don’t impress when he ignores the logistical nightmare of mass asylum claims. Empathy for migrants shouldn’t trump border security realities.
Boasberg’s June order demanded that the Trump administration let CECOT detainees seek habeas relief to challenge alleged gang ties. That order, too, was appealed, showing a pattern of resistance. The administration’s defiance risks undermining judicial authority, a dangerous precedent for conservatives who value law and order.
During Thursday’s hearing, Boasberg grilled DOJ attorney Davis on compliance with court mandates. Davis’s cagey response—that they’d obey only “lawful” orders—suggests more appeals are coming. This legal tap dance frustrates efforts to resolve the migrants’ plight swiftly.
Boasberg ordered both sides to submit a joint status update by August 7, with biweekly reports to follow. The Justice Department still hasn’t provided a list of the deported migrants or clarified their immigration status. Transparency shouldn’t be this hard for a government preaching accountability.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit previously stayed Boasberg’s April contempt ruling, muddying the waters further. Trump officials calling Boasberg an “activist judge” and floating impeachment ideas drew a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Political posturing won’t fix this mess.
Many deported Venezuelans, like Frengel Reyes Mota and Andry Jose Hernandez Romero, were asylum-seekers fleeing Maduro’s regime.
Boasberg’s March ruling, opening with a Kafka quote, highlighted their sudden detention without explanation. Romanticizing their plight doesn’t erase the need for vetting to protect American communities.
Gelernt’s concern about the migrants’ conditions in Venezuela is valid, but his outrage feels selective when border policies strain public resources. “Many, if not most,” were asylum-seekers, he claims, yet without clear data, it’s hard to separate genuine refugees from economic migrants. Clarity, not emotion, should guide policy.
