The judge maintains the blockade of the deportations of Trump’s gangs, says they face ‘torture, beats’ in El Salvador

Venezuelan migrants transferred by the Trump administration to El Salvador last week deserved to have a judicial hearing before their deportations to determine if they belonged to the Trena de Aragua gang, a federal judge ruled on Monday morning.

In a ruling that denies the Trump administration application to dissolve its order blocking deportations, the United States district judge, James Boasberg, wrote that the “unprecedented use” of the Alien enemies law does not eliminate the government’s responsibility to ensure that the eliminated men could dispute their designation as alleged gang members.

Last week, Trump invoked Alien enemies law, an authority in times of war used to deport non -citizens with little or not due process, arguing that the Venezuelan gang Train of Aragua is a “hybrid criminal state” that is invading the United States

“The court does not need to resolve the thorny question of whether the Judiciary has the authority to evaluate this statement in the first place. That is because it is likely that the plaintiffs are successful in another equally fundamental theory: before they can deport themselves, they can be deported, they are entitled to individualized hearings to determine if the act applies to all in all,” Judge Boasberg wrote on his Monday, adding that the men have their case.

Judge Boasberg acknowledged that the use of the Alien Enemies Law “implies a large number of complicated legal problems,” but avoided the broadest issue of whether the law was properly invoked, instead of focusing on due process deserved by men. He added that men have been irreparably damaged by their removal to a prison of El Salvadora where they face “torture, beatings and even death.”

“The federal courts are equipped to judge that question when people threatened with detention and elimination challenge their designation as such. Because the appointed plaintiffs dispute that they are members of Aragua train, they cannot be deported until a court has been able to decide the merits of their challenge,” he wrote.

Judge Boasberg also questioned the accusation of the Trump administration that the decision risks national security, noting that men would still be detained within the United States if they had not been deported.

During a judicial hearing on Friday, the lawyers of the DOJ recognized that the men deported in the Alien enemies Law have the right to a habit hearing, where they could dispute their alleged membership in the train of Aragua, but they refused to vote that each man would be given an audience before they were retired from the country.

Boasberg’s ruling occurs when a Federal Court of Appeals is preparing to listen to arguments on Monday about the use of the Enemies Enemies Law by the Trump Administration for deportations last week.

If the DC Circuit Court of Circuit annuls the Boasberg block of the use of the president of the Cigüy War Law, the Trump administration could exercise the authority to deport any alleged member of the migrant gang with little or not due process.

The lawyers representing Venezuelan men attacked under Trump’s proclamation have argued that the president exceeded his authority by using the alien enemies law against a gang, instead of a state actor, outside the time of war.

“The president is trying to write the limits of Congress outside the law,” argued the plaintiffs, and added that US presidents have used the law three times during or immediately preceding a war.

But the Trump administration has argued that the Judiciary does not have the right to review the use of the Alien Enemies Law, claiming that deportations fall under the powers of article II of the President to eliminate the alleged terrorists and execute the foreign policy of the country.

“The president’s action is legal and is based on a long history of use of war authorities against organizations related to foreign states and national security judgments, which are not subject to the second judicial divination,” DAJ lawyers have discussed in judicial presentations.

Last week, Boasberg temporarily blocked the use of the law by the president to deport more than 200 alleged gang members without due process, qualifying the “terribly terribly” and “incredibly problematic” removals. An official of the application of immigration and customs of the United States, later recognized in a affidavit that “many” of non -citizens deported last week under the law of enemies Alien had no criminal record in the United States.

The Trump administration is asking the Court of Appeals to annul the Boasberg Temporary Restriction Order that blocks deportations, while Judge Boasberg continues to examine whether the Trump administration deliberately challenged its order by sending men to a prison in El Salvadoran instead of returning them to the United States as indicated.

“The government is not being terribly cooperative at this time, but I will reach the bottom of whether they violated my order and who ordered this and what is the consequence,” said Boasberg on Friday.

With deportations under the law of alien enemies temporarily blocked, the Trump administration has promised to use other authorities to deport non -citizens. During the weekend, the president of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Jorge Rodríguez, announced that the country had reached an agreement to resume repatriation flights of Venezuelan migrants from the United States

“We will continue to point to the worst of the worst, what we have been doing from the first day, and deporting from the United States through the various laws in the books,” Tom Homan border told Jon Karl of ABC on Sunday.

The panel of three people, today’s audience, today’s arguments include two judges nominated by Republican presidents, including one nominated by Trump himself. The DC circuit is the last stop before the Trump administration could take the case to the Supreme Court of the United States, where Trump nominated three judges during their last period, solidifying the conservative majority of the Court.