Well, it happened again. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, issued another ruling on immigration. In J.G.G. v. Trump, Boasberg ruled that suspected Tren de Aragua gang members from El Salvador who were removed under the Alien and Enemies Act must be able to challenge their deportations.
Writing about the ruling for our sister site of RedState, Susie Moore highlighted how the ruling is particularly bizarre, given that Boasberg quoted Franz Kafka to describe the suspected gang members' situation.
"As is now clear, CECOT Class members were entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removability pursuant to the Proclamation. That process — which was improperly withheld — must now be afforded to them," Boasberg laid out. "Put differently, Plaintiffs' ability to bring habeas challenges to their removal must be restored. In light of the well-established law of remedies and the example that has already been set by all three levels of the federal judiciary, then, Defendants must facilitate Plaintiffs’ ability to proceed through habeas and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process," he continued, before issuing warnings about how this could supposedly happen to "anyone," a common complaint we've heard from those on the left opposing the Trump administration's decisions.
"The Court determines that such a remedy balances Defendants’ distinct role in conducting foreign affairs with the grave need to right their legal wrongs; absent this relief, the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action," Boasberg also wrote, with added emphasis. He cited Justice Sonia Sotomayor in the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, another suspected gang member, in this case MS-13, who was deported to El Salvador. Sotomayor has frequently ruled against the Trump administration, especially on immigration.
There's also a lengthy back and forth process involved, as Moore explained.
The case, of course, involves a planeload (or two) of Venezuelans — illegal aliens believed to be TdA members — who were removed from the U.S. by the Trump administration to El Salvador in mid-March. ACLU/Democracy Forward lawyers scrambled before the D.C. District Court on a Saturday to secure a temporary restraining order (TRO), with the case landing before the court's Presiding Judge (Boasberg), who swiftly entered orders essentially demanding the plane be turned around mid-flight. There's been a ton of back and forth since, including a trip to the Supreme Court.
After plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) and Democracy Forward, refined and refiled some of their motions, Boasberg issued a ruling on Wednesday. He also limited his ruling to "All noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador on March 15 and 16, 2025, pursuant solely to the Presidential Proclamation entitled, 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua.'"
As a result, Moore predicted that there will not only be an appeal, but that the plaintiffs may even be the party to appeal in this case, given that Boasberg only ruled for them in part.
Boasberg has repeatedly ruled against the Trump administration on immigration, as well as on other matters, raising questions and concerns when he is repeatedly assigned such cases. Congressional Republicans have heeded President Donald Trump's call to do something about reining in rogue judges like Boasberg. In April, the House passed the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025 (NORRA) meant to do just that.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member