The legal developments have moved so quickly and in so many places and in so many cases (almost 180), that it’s hard to keep up. I’ve been following Margot Cleveland from The Federalist on X who has been doing an amazing job tracking cases.
The latest is a ruling from the Supreme Court in the case handled by Judge James Boasberg in the D.C. District which has involved some wild things, including an order that the government turn around in mid-flight an airplane carrying members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua (TdA) out of the country. The Judge appears to claim the government violated his order by not doing so, and we can expect a ruling on contempt any day.
But in other Judge Boasberg news, the Supreme Court considered the more basic issue of whether the case even was proper in the DC District. The government argued that the DC federal court was an improper venue because the complaint was one for Habeas Corpus, which could only be brought in the district in which someone was detained.
The Supreme Court (5-4, with Barret joining the dissenting liberal Justices in part), that Judge Boasberg had no jurisdiction. From the ‘per curiam’ Order:
This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a provisionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation…. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days…. The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders….We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of removable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” …, must be brought in habeas…. Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas…. And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.”…. For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detainees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action….The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice after the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a reasonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs.For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay.
I’d call this a partial win for the government. The desire to whisk TdA members out of the country will be subject to judicial review, though it’s unclear what that will look like. At a minimum, the detainee will get to argue that he is not a member of the gang and the government likely will have to prove (not sure by what standard) that the person is a TdA member. So this is likely to slow down the process.
But at least the case is away from Judge Boasberg and future district shopping in detainee cases will be difficult.
As to the contempt proceeding? I think the Judge will push forward. It seems personal to him, as Margot Cleveland notes:
But can a Judge who never should have had the case in the first place and whose order (turn the planes around) was grossly improper hold someone in contempt for not complying with the order?
DOJ Tells the Judge to drop his contempt proceeding because the TRO he says they violated has just been vacated. LOL.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY