A federal judge has launched a blistering inquiry into what could become one of the most damning chapters of President Donald Trump’s second term: the secretive deportation of over 100 migrants to a notorious Salvadoran prison under an obscure wartime law.
On Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to turn over documents that may prove whether it violated federal law and constitutional due-process rights by deporting migrants to El Salvador’s CECOT prison — a facility widely condemned by human rights groups for its inhumane conditions and lack of legal oversight.
Boasberg’s order, part of a broader habeas corpus petition brought by attorneys for several detainees, aims to establish whether these migrants are still effectively under U.S. control, even though they’re being held abroad. The answer could determine whether their removal was lawful — or if it was an illegal end-run around American courts and due-process protections.
The underlying legal question centers on what’s known as “constructive custody” — when someone isn’t physically in U.S. custody but is held at the behest of U.S. authorities. And based on both Trump’s public comments and the administration’s contradictory explanations, Boasberg isn’t buying the government’s denials.
“Those claims, if ultimately borne out, would show that Respondents have violated federal law and Petitioners’ due-process rights,” Boasberg wrote in a sharply worded order.
He didn’t stop there. Boasberg directly cited Trump’s own words to ABC News just last week, in which the president casually remarked that he could have one of the deported migrants — Kilmar Abrego Garcia — returned to the U.S. with a simple phone call. “We have lawyers that don’t want to do this,” Trump added.
The judge’s response? If the president can summon the return of a supposedly foreign-held detainee, then maybe — just maybe — the U.S. does have control after all.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Boasberg grilled Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli over the glaring contradictions between public statements by top administration officials and their courtroom claims. When Kambli tried to dance around Trump’s ABC interview, the judge cut him off: “Is the president not telling the truth, or could he secure the release of Mr. Abrego Garcia?”
The evasive answers didn’t sit well. Boasberg also pointed to comments from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, who proudly declared the Salvadoran prison as “one of the tools in our tool kit” to punish those who “commit crimes against the American people.”
“This isn’t nuance,” Boasberg said, visibly irritated. “It’s either true or not.”
To make matters worse for the administration, Boasberg raised the issue of a $4.76 million grant the U.S. awarded to El Salvador’s law enforcement — money that, the judge suggested, might be used to house the very detainees the government claims it no longer controls. That grant, according to DOJ attorneys, “could be used” for those purposes but doesn’t represent a formal agreement.
But for Boasberg, that’s not good enough.
The judge’s order now compels the government to answer specific questions under oath: Were these migrants deported at the request of U.S. officials? Are they being held abroad specifically to avoid U.S. legal scrutiny? Would El Salvador release them if the U.S. simply asked?
The case stems from Trump’s controversial invocation of the Alien Enemies Act — a wartime law from 1798 — to justify the March deportations. Migrants claim they were whisked away without warning, denied legal hearings, and dumped into a foreign prison “under contract with the U.S. government,” where they face indefinite detention without trial.
Human rights organizations have long criticized CECOT for its overcrowded cells, lack of medical care, and alleged use of torture. For the U.S. to deliberately deport people there without due process may violate not just American law but international human rights conventions.
If Judge Boasberg ultimately finds the U.S. maintained control over the detainees, it could trigger a landmark ruling. It would mean the Trump administration circumvented federal courts, denied constitutional rights, and unlawfully outsourced detention to a foreign regime — all under a president who now admits he can “make a call” to fix it.
“Teaming up with foreign agents cannot exculpate officials of the United States from liability,” Boasberg warned, citing precedent. That single line might become the thesis of a legal reckoning yet to come.
The next few weeks could reveal whether the Trump administration engaged in one of the boldest and most lawless immigration maneuvers in modern U.S. history — and whether a federal judge can stop it in time.
