A federal judge in Washington, D.C., has ruled that Venezuelan migrants removed from the United States under a proclamation issued by President Donald Trump were denied fundamental due-process protections, concluding that the U.S. government maintained constructive custody over the detainees even after transferring them to a notorious prison in El Salvador. The decision requires the government to facilitate hearings allowing the migrants to challenge their removals and reaffirmed the judiciary’s role in policing executive power in immigration enforcement.
The ruling comes in J.G.G. v. Trump, a case arising from the secretive removal of Venezuelan nationals accused of gang affiliation and sent abroad without notice or an opportunity to contest the allegations against them.
The Case’s Unusual and Troubling Origins
The case stems from events in mid-March 2025, when the Department of Homeland Security began moving Venezuelan detainees held in the United States to a detention facility in Texas. Around the same time, the President quietly invoked the Alien Enemies Act, asserting that the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua had engaged in an “invasion” of the United States.
Before the proclamation was publicly released, dozens of Venezuelan detainees were taken from their cells in the early morning hours, shackled, and placed on aircraft. They were not informed of the legal basis for their removal, nor were they told they could challenge their designation as gang members.
Within hours—while an emergency court hearing was underway—252 Venezuelan men were flown out of the United States. Rather than being returned to Venezuela, they were transported to El Salvador and imprisoned at the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT), a maximum-security mega-prison known for its harsh conditions.
Early Court Intervention and Government Defiance
That same day, the district court issued a temporary restraining order barring the removals and certified a class of individuals subject to the proclamation. Despite the order directing the government not to relinquish custody, the detainees were disembarked in El Salvador and placed into CECOT.
Those actions later became the subject of a separate contempt inquiry, highlighting the extraordinary tension between the executive branch and the judiciary in the case.
An interim ruling by the Supreme Court further complicated matters, holding that challenges to the removals must proceed through habeas corpus petitions filed in the location of detention. As a result, the district court’s initial injunction was vacated on venue grounds.
Constructive Custody at the Center of the Dispute
After the detainees were imprisoned in El Salvador, a new group of plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, arguing that the United States had retained effective control over their detention despite their physical presence abroad. They sought an order requiring the government to facilitate their return to pursue habeas relief.
The district court initially found the question of custody to be close, but after further factual development—including financial records, diplomatic communications, and public statements by U.S. officials—the court revisited the issue.
In its latest opinion, the court concluded that the United States exercised constructive custody over the detainees while they were held at CECOT. The court pointed to evidence that the United States arranged and financed the detention, retained influence over the detainees’ continued imprisonment, and ultimately played a decisive role in their release.
The court emphasized that El Salvador had no independent law-enforcement interest in detaining the Venezuelan nationals and acted largely at the behest of the United States.
Release Does Not End the Case
Although the detainees were later released from CECOT and returned to Venezuela as part of a prisoner exchange involving U.S. nationals, the court rejected the government’s argument that the case was moot.
The court found that the plaintiffs continue to suffer collateral consequences from their designation under the proclamation, including bars on entry to the United States, ineligibility for asylum, and exposure to asset freezes and forfeiture. Because those injuries could be remedied through a successful legal challenge, the court held that the claims remain justiciable.
Class Certification and the Right to a Hearing
The court also certified a class of plaintiffs consisting of individuals removed on March 15 under the Alien Enemies Act. While acknowledging that habeas proceedings are traditionally individualized, the court concluded that class-wide treatment was appropriate given the uniform policy being challenged and the government’s ability to moot individual claims through unilateral action.
On the merits, the court held that the plaintiffs were denied due process when they were removed without notice or an opportunity to contest their alleged gang affiliation. The court ordered the government to facilitate procedures allowing the detainees to obtain the hearings they were previously denied.
“Our law requires no less,” the court concluded.