Trump administration deports hundreds of migrants even as judge orders that removals be stopped

[BumRushDaShow]

Last edited Sun Mar 16, 2025, 01:02 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: AP

Updated 12:58 PM EDT, March 16, 2025


The Trump administration has transferred hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador even as a federal judge issued an order temporarily barring the deportations under an 18th century wartime declaration targeting Venezuelan gang members, officials said Sunday. Flights were in the air at the time of the ruling.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order Saturday blocking the deportations but lawyers told him there were already two planes with migrants in the air — one headed for El Salvador, the other for Honduras. Boasberg verbally ordered the planes be turned around, but they apparently were not and he did not include the directive in his written order.

“Oopsie…Too late,” Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally who agreed to house about 300 migrants for a year at a cost of $6 million in his country’s prisons, wrote on the social media site X above an article about Boasberg’s ruling. That post was recirculated by White House communications director Steven Cheung.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who negotiated an earlier deal with Bukele to house migrants, posted on the site: “We sent over 250 alien enemy members of Tren de Aragua which El Salvador has agreed to hold in their very good jails at a fair price that will also save our taxpayer dollars.”

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/trump-venezuela-el-salvador-immigration-dd4f61999f85c4dd8bcaba7d4fc7c9af

---

“Oopsie…Too late,” Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally who agreed to house about 300 migrants for a year at a cost of $6 million in his country’s prisons, wrote on the social media site X above an article about Boasberg’s ruling. That post was recirculated by White House communications director Steven Cheung.

Article updated.

Original article/headline -

Trump administration deports hundreds of migrants, despite judge's order stopping removal

Updated 11:47 AM EDT, March 16, 2025


The Trump administration has transferred hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador despite a federal judge’s order temporarily barring the deportations under an 18th century wartime declaration targeting Venezuelan gang members, officials said Sunday. Flights were in the air at the time of the ruling.

U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order Saturday evening blocking the deportations but lawyers told him there were already two planes with migrants in the air — one headed for El Salvador, the other for Honduras. Boasberg verbally ordered the planes be turned around, but they apparently were not and he did not include the directive in his written order.

“Oopsie…Too late,” Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, a Trump ally who agreed to house about 300 migrants for a year at a cost of $6 million in his country’s prisons, wrote on the social media site X above an article about Boasberg’s ruling. That post was recirculated by White House communications director Steven Cheung.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who negotiated an earlier deal with Bukele to house migrants, posted on the site: “We sent over 250 alien enemy members of Tren de Aragua which El Salvador has agreed to hold in their very good jails at a fair price that will also save our taxpayer dollars.”

[tonkatoy8888]

1. This. Is. Bad.

I really don't care if they were two plane loads of serial killers, or two plane loads of Sunday School teachers caught up in a mass jaywalking probe. A Federal judge issued an order not to deport them.

This is just the latest incident of the Trump administration openly defying an order from a federal judge.

I'm not a constitutional scholar. What enforcement powers do judges have when the government thumbs their noses at orders? Is the entire system predicated on everyone following the rules? If so, well are fucked.

I believe that is what we used to quaintly refer to as a constitutional crisis.

[NotHardly]

4. THIS is a Constitutional crisis, right the f*ck now.

Is there no one to stop Trump and his Stooges? Is there now will? Is there no way, or are we merely tools for this Nazi shit?

[cadoman]

5. No. It's. Not. -- executive is not obligated to follow an unconstitutional judicial order

These are members of a terrorist group who migrated to the US in undocumented status. TdA was designated as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT). Congress had 45 days to challenge that designation and they rightfully did not.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/designating-cartels-and-other-organizations-as-foreign-terrorist-organizations-and-specially-designated-global-terrorists/

The POTUS essentially has full military power to combat these entities. What TFG executed here is a highly restrained use of that power (compare with Al-Aulaqi for an idea of the full scope of power the executive has here).

It would be a fucking disaster to waste political capital defending TdA against a perfectly legitimate executive action. Any Democratic administration would be executing similar action to protect us.

Please use discretion when criticizing the Mango Madman because even a broken clock is right twice a day and we lose credibility when we blindly criticize everything he does.

[SnoopDog]

9. Who says it's and 'unconstitutional judicial order'?

You?

In America, normal America that is, the courts decide what is constitutional.

[Polybius]

14. Honest question: What was illegal about the deportation of the "Venezuelan gang members?"

Did the judge say why?

[SnoopDog]

18. Why don't you look it up yourself?

[Polybius]

19. Because it was easier to ask you

[BumRushDaShow]

20. What was "illegal" was the use of the "Alien Enemies Act of 1798" to do it

That law is ONLY supposed to be used when the U.S. is at war with another country (which was the case the last 3 times it was used - War of 1812, WWI, WWII).

The U.S. CAN deport these criminal non-citizens but THERE IS A PROCESS that involves something that originates in the Constitution (a document that no one will read or even search for) - "Due Process".

You can ask George Takei about his experience with the last time that Act was invoked -

[Polybius]

21. Thank you for answering me BumRush!

I didn't understand the reasoning at first, but it makes perfect sense now.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. When I saw saw your reply, I was literally listening to a local news radio report on this very subject

The reporter was talking to a local organization who warned that the focus on this group is probably a "test case" to go after anyone else they want.

[MayReasonRule]

13. The Judicial Branch Decides What Is Constitutional

Not you, not me, and not the fascist shits in the White House.

[moniss]

16. While your intent may be laudable your understanding of the legal case at hand and

the legal basis cited by Crumb The 1st is completely incorrect. The court decision said the legal basis cited is inapplicable and there is no showing that these people were acting on/sent on behalf of a government and the act talks about being at war. Congress has not declared us to be at war with any country so the application of the legal basis fails on more fronts as well.

You don't get to apply a law allowing bad produce to be returned to people for example just because you want to use some basis to get rid of them. Furthermore your understanding of Constitutional order, it's application, due process, court decisions and the responsibility of parties in a case to abide by those decisions also fails.

First of all we as a country are required to act under our Constitution. It is what gives us any authority to act on anything. Marbury v Madison in 1803 determined that the Courts have the power to review and determine Constitutionality. Also this is sometimes summed up as the power of judicial review. When a case is in court the parties, including the government, are bound by the due process of judicial review. The parties are not just the lawyers in court. It is who they represent in the case and in this case it is the government and the projected deportees.

If the government disagreed with a court decision then due process allows them to ask for a stay by a higher court while they appeal but it does not allow them to simply ignore and fail to comply. If that were the case then any court case about anything could have the same thing happen and under your standards it would be OK. The very least the government did here is violate due process and a finding of contempt could also be found.

Nobody is pleased in having gang members here but the answer is to deport them lawfully. They had them in custody, obviously, and therefore had the ability to keep hold of them while the government went to a higher court or the government came back with a different legal basis applied. Instead in an apparent fit of anger they ignored the court, violated due process and now are doing a celebration over having done so.

If you do claim to really understand the process then your argument here boils down to "the ends justify the means" and the Constitution and due process should be something we apply and adhere to on the basis of how we feel about people or a subject matter.

[cadoman]

25. an act of war isn't necessary to invoke the act, see below

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21

"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. "'

The evidence that TdA is acting on behalf of, or perhaps even as a foreign government is summarized in the EO:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/03/invocation-of-the-alien-enemies-act-regarding-the-invasion-of-the-united-states-by-tren-de-aragua/

"TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus. TdA grew significantly while Tareck El Aissami served as governor of Aragua between 2012 and 2017. In 2017, El Aissami was appointed as Vice President of Venezuela. Soon thereafter, the United States Department of the Treasury designated El Aissami as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. El Aissami is currently a United States fugitive facing charges arising from his violations of United States sanctions triggered by his Department of the Treasury designation."

Like El Aissami, Nicolas Maduro, who claims to act as Venezuela’s President and asserts control over the security forces and other authorities in Venezuela, also maintains close ties to regime-sponsored narco-terrorists. Maduro leads the regime-sponsored enterprise Cártel de los Soles, which coordinates with and relies on TdA and other organizations to carry out its objective of using illegal narcotics as a weapon to “flood” the United States. In 2020, Maduro and other regime members were charged with narcoterrorism and other crimes in connection with this plot against America.

Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA. The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States. Indeed, in December 2024, INTERPOL Washington confirmed: “Tren de Aragua has emerged as a significant threat to the United States as it infiltrates migration flows from Venezuela.” Evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens."

And admittedly, I misunderstand the "wartime" aspect of how this is being processed in one of my other comments as I thought they were taking a different legal angle.

[moniss]

26. Let's cut the crap of accepting that just because they

say something or allege something it is supposedly true. None of their assertions take position over a court order. That is our Constitution and our process. When people countenance going outside of that or finding ways to try to define themselves away from it then you no longer have the rule of law. The executive is not the party who determines what is lawful. That is the role of the courts. They could assert their basis for acting but once that basis has been acted on and prohibited by a court they are bound to it 100% and nothing else other than their due process right to appeal or seek a stay from a higher court. Period. There is nothing else. It doesn't matter if someone argues the court got it wrong. There is only one process by which to act that is legal. Anything else is an illegal act. Period. End of sentence. There is no gray area.

[NickB79]

29. What foreign nation or government would that be, exactly?

Are you asserting that the drug cartels and gangs are in fact the de facto government of Venezuela? Because that's the only way this argument would hold up.

[cadoman]

31. that is essentially what the EO asserts, it uses the term "hybrid criminal state" (nt)

[Cobalt Violet]

24. I don't believe they are all gang members any more than I believe "their eating the cats and dogs".

You got proof?

[cadoman]

2. what gives him the power to unilaterally deport undocumented migrants?

Wartime powers. Boasberg is going to be overruled and possibly worse over this. Especially given that a remedy is available as far as allowing them back in with their undocumented status.

It would be a mistake to use our political capital protecting TdA terrorists, but we're probably going to proceed to do it because we're in an emotional state and flailing right now.

[BumRushDaShow]

3. "It would be a mistake to use our political capital protecting TdA terrorists"

Who is "we"?

You DO realize that there are who knows how many immigrant rights groups out there as well as orgs like the ACLU who have been directly battling this, right?

And you do know that the "Alien Enemies Act" WAS explicitly designated to ONLY be used when the U.S. is AT WAR (declared) with another country, right?

It's to be used against "nations/governments", NOT groups of individuals, even if they are criminals who may need to be locked up for violating U.S. law

[cadoman]

7. you do know that the ACLU battled a far more extreme use of this power and lost, right?

https://www.aclu.org/cases/al-aulaqi-v-panetta-constitutional-challenge-killing-three-us-citizens

"We" is Democrats who see that the battle to fight Trump has become so unfocused and directionless that we are hitting ourselves in the face. The general public will think we are insane if we can't acknowledge when he is doing something correct. I contend that any Democratic administration would ensure we are similarly protected from TdA.

TdA does not have a constitutional right to operate across our borders as it pleases.

[BumRushDaShow]

15. Again

You have attributed to "Democrats" regarding this situation, something that is being challenged by ORGANIZATIONS.

The ACLU is not "Democrats". In fact, on many occasions - particularly for First Amendment issues - the ACLU has gone AFTER Democrats. The link that you provide is against a "Democrat" back under Obama.

Not sure why that is not clicking.

The (Democratic) state AGs have been systematically filing suits against this administration regarding its illegal and unconstitutional activities with respect to the illegal buyout offers, suspensions and firing of employees. Perhaps focus on THAT when you say "Democrats".

[cadoman]

27. I was referencing sentiment from forum threads, bsky, etc.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143418756

https://bsky.app/search?q=trump+deports

But agree 100% that ACLU has gone after Democrats in some cases, including the case I referenced which was against President Obama.

I actually don't see any elected Democrats commenting on the action, which is good. Hopefully this was an instance of me overreacting based on a handful of flippant comments. I'll own it, no problem.

[BumRushDaShow]

28. DU is just a "discussion board"

You are going to see a full range of commentary here. Trust me.

But we are not (for the most part) the ones making policy, although there are some operatives (and on occasion, elected officials, and even a number who have run for office) who have posted here (e.g., Alan Grayson (D-FL) has an account and used to post here back in the past), and those folks might offer their perspectives to their local/county/state/national party leadership on this issue.

However the main problem with this particular circumstance is that the "Alien Enemies Act" was written for use ONLY when the U.S. is engaged in a war with another country. At present, the U.S. has NOT declared war on a foreign nation and thus the process for dealing with criminal non-citizens is NOT to use this Act but some applicable combination of a pile of OTHER laws.

I posted this video interview upthread, done a few years ago with actor/activist George Takei, who was a victim of the LAST TIME the "Alien Enemies Act" was invoked (during WW2). It's a fascinating but also heartbreaking story that is worth the viewing (the whole thing is a little under 15 minutes long) -

[cadoman]

32. appreciate that

I think the back and forth are what make a good forum.

With respect to the status of a war declaration, wouldn't you agree the text of the statute bolded below clearly describes that a secondary case is when an "invasion or predatory incursion" is perpetrated?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/21

"Whenever there is a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies. "'

[BumRushDaShow]

35. But you cannot ignore what was in your highlighted section

by any foreign nation or government

A gang of criminals is NOT "a foreign nation" or a "government". That sounds more like the elected officials who are now running the U.S. if anything.

If the NATION/GOVERNMENT of Venezuela attacked or the NATION/GOVERNMENT of El Salvador attacked and Congress declared war, then THAT might justify use of this authority, where those individuals would basically be POWs, and can be dealt with under specific authorities (and treated per the Geneva Conventions that we signed off on), and deported.

I.e., if there were state-sponsored TROOPS or SPYs, etc., sent into the U.S., then that might trigger a need for diplomacy, after which if that fails, a declaration of war.

In the case of the video of George Takei who was impacted by the "Alien Enemies Act", he was a child at the time, his family was rounded up, and put in a series of concentration "camps" including one that was originally a horse race track where the families were assigned actual "horse stalls" to live in. This was done after that event that my mother often talked about as having happened when she was 11 years old - the bombing of Pearl Harbor (a base on what was then a U.S. territory), which lead the U.S. to declare war on the nation ( "empire" ) of Japan.



We have NOT "declared war" on any nation.

[cadoman]

37. agree, and the plaintiffs will have to prove that TdA is an independent org from Venezuela

The executive did make the judgement that it was (a hybrid criminal state) and activated the AEA. Congress has not weighed in on the measure (and based on the muted response so far it seems elected Democrats are rightfully holding their tongues).

The more I read the more clear it is to me that the executive doesn't need an act of war to invoke the act. Look at the plaintiff filing here, where they clearly are aware that while AEA has historically been invoked during war, it clearly has clauses to be invoked w/out a war declaration:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.1.0_2.pdf

"But the AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only
applies to warlike actions: it cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—
with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which
has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States. "

As to your second point (that TdA is not a hybrid criminal state), that is the linchpin of the case for these plaintiffs, for whom many are unaware the burden of proof has flipped (note indeed that they are plaintiffs in this case and not defendants).

And this is where I'm gonna make an argument many in this forum are not gonna like but that they need to hear:

Democrats should graciously support and applaud this action.

I'm making that argument from both a political and moral perspective. Otherwise we are going to be ideologically aligned with the idea that TdA is _definitively not associated with the Venezuelan government_ and I'm sorry if you genuinely believe that is the case you are in for a rough few months coming up. I give TFG enough credit that he would not pull this over-the-top maneuver if he didn't have the cards, and there is likely to be a slow drip of Maduro/TdA associations leaking out and being discussed in the coming weeks.

This is just basic public info. Whatever the US military has is gonna be 100x more extensive than this. The plaintiffs won't stand a chance unless the entire narrative about TdA is completely fraudulent (in which case our press will have some serious explaining to do).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel_of_the_Suns

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diosdado_Cabello

Here is what is gonna go down. Most of the TdA members have already been deported and were over international waters when Boasberg literally phoned the DoJ to try to turn them around. It turns out though that the five plaintiffs that were in the filing were all held back, see courtlistener here:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436/gov.uscourts.dcd.278436.19.0_1.pdf

"The five individual Plaintiffs that were the subject of the first TRO have not been removed"

That means this thing is still going to be litigated--in a Federal court--with evidence and discovery and all that shit. You can also bet that it's no coincidence these five men were kept back. They were likely baited into making their filings and the DoJ likely knows their cases are crap and is eager to see them in court.

Please be wary of outlets attempting to emotively equate this with the Japanese internment. I am sure they are wrong at best, and a trap at worst.

[tonkatoy8888]

8. If my memory is correct

we have what is technically known as a shit ton of correctional facilitates in the country where they may be detained.

Oh, and sometimes it's important to fight for the rights of people you detest in order to protect your own rights.

[cadoman]

10. we have a shit-ton of overcrowded and poorly-funded facilities that desperately need to be improved

So they can safely hold US prisoners. So your memory is cloudy w/respect to important details about their use for holding large numbers of foreign terrorist organization members.

El Salvador has exceptionally prison space dedicated to holding gang members. They are the perfect place to hold TdA and we should be ecstatic they are taking them off our hands.

[Dumpy]

6. How to convince low information voters

that constitutional rights are more important than kicking out planes full of potential gang members?

[Sea Turtle]

33. Laken Riley agrees!

Oh wait, she can’t. She is dead because she was killed by TDA gang member. There is irreparable harm in leaving these gang members in the US. They can be brought back to the US and released. Laken can’t be brought back.

Gang members are most likely to operate in poor areas and people of color are most likely to be their victims. Do we not care about what is happening to minorities in poor communities at the hands of the she gang members?

[3825-87867]

11. Remember all the Do-gooders and garland apologists here?

They all said we need to follow the law! The law is important. We can't break the law. Due process and all that. We now see the result of one side following the "law" and the other who not only thinks the law doesn't pertain to them, but ignores the law.

It's fine that some here can "remind us" of what is and isn't legal (because they are the ONLY ones who know). I'm sure those same commenters are equally reminding those on the right of what is legal and that they aren't following the law. They must be on right wing blogs and sites 24/7 reminding all of those ammosexuals that they need to follow the law! I guess they need to remind us that WE have to respect the law while the other side breaks laws to advantage themselves. Seems eminently...fair?

Thanks Roberts and fiends.
Lose one group of oh-so-holies and another springs up trying their best to show...whatever it is they think others don't know by sounding so non partisan.

[republianmushroom]

17. Jail time for whom judge ?

[Cobalt Violet]

22. Is there any real proof these are gang members?

[stoned]

30. Doesn't matter how anyone "feels" about it

Judge is incorrect and in violation, Pres Anaranjado is correct. If they are out of status they are gone, and the Executive can bar entry/revoke status with some, but very little, limitations. If these were folks convicted of CIMTs, or are admitted members of a foreign criminal organization (gang in this case) then they are ineligible to remain inside the US.

[BumRushDaShow]

34. The problem -AGAIN- is the use of the authority from the "Alien Enemies Act of 1798"

which in this case IS illegal. The United States is NOT at war with a country and none has been declared (which per the Constitution is the purview of CONGRESS) -

Article I

(snip)

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power

(snip)

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

There are THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS who have been deported using the correct authorities.

What war has been declared that allows the suspension of due process?

NEWSFLASH: We are NOT a "dictatorship" with a "unitary Executive".