On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg gave lawyers for Venezuelan deportees until Monday, March 31, to respond to the Trump administration’s invocation of the state secrets privilege and refusal to provide the court with any additional information about the deportation of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador.
Attorneys filed multiple affidavits on March 15 from those allegedly on board deportation flights, their relatives, or those representing them.
Why It Matters
Boasberg and the Trump administration have been in somewhat a battle over the removal of over 200 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA). The judge has voiced concerns that due process was not followed and issued a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), but two planes were already in the air headed for El Salvador.
What To Know
Boasberg’s order Tuesday was directed at plaintiffs in the case J.G.G. v Trump, which was initially brought by five Venezuelans fearful that the president was going to invoke the AEA to deport them without a court hearing.
The lawsuit, in conjunction with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), came too late for the dozens of alleged TdA members who were flown to the high-security Salvadoran prison just over a week ago.
The District Court Judge has sought to obtain as much information as possible from the Trump administration about who was on the flights, but on Monday, officials doubled down, with Attorney General Pam Bondi, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem signing declarations that the information the court wanted was subject to state secrets privileges.
Associated Press
It was argued that providing more information would put national security at risk, so there was “no need for the requested disclosures.”
Boasberg said Tuesday that plaintiffs now had until March 31 to respond to the Trump administration’s move. In recent days, extra details have emerged as plaintiffs filed new testimonies to the court.
Among them were a Venezuelan woman who claimed to have overheard officers telling the men on board her plane to sign papers confessing their TdA membership and a Nicaraguan man who said he was sent back to the U.S. when Salvadoran officials told American counterparts that women and other nationals were not part of their agreement.
What People Are Saying
The Trump administration, in its court filing: “The Court has all of the facts it needs to address the compliance issues before it. Further intrusions on the Executive Branch would present dangerous and wholly unwarranted separation-of-powers harms with respect to diplomatic and national security concerns that the Court lacks competence to address.”
A Venezuelan immigrant, in an affidavit filed Monday: “While on the plane the government officials were asking the men to sign a document and they didn’t want to. The government officials were pushing them to sign the documents and threatening them. I heard them discussing the documents and they were about the men admitting they were members of TdA.”
U.S. Appeals Court Judge Patricia Millett, at a hearing on Monday: “There’s no regulations, and nothing was adopted by the agency officials that were administering this. The people weren’t given notice. They weren’t told where they were going. They were given those people on those planes on that Saturday and had no opportunity to file habeas or any type of action to challenge the removal under the AEA.”
What Happens Next
The case is also still awaiting a decision in the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, which will decide whether the Trump administration could resume removal flights under the AEA.
Update 3/25/25, 12:24 p.m. ET: This article was updated with additional information.
