- The Trump administration used the Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Tren de Aragua gang members, sparking legal challenges. A judge ordered the administration to halt the deportation flights.
- A separate court battle is underway over the timing of the order’s implementation and whether the Trump administration defied it when multiple deportation flights landed in El Salvador.
- Media coverage varies sharply along political lines, with left-leaning outlets emphasizing alleged legal violations and right-leaning outlets defending the administration.
Full Story
A legal battle is unfolding over the Trump administration’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged Venezuelan gang members linked to Tren de Aragua.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit on behalf of five detainees, leading to a federal judge blocking the deportation flights. Below is the original suit.
The case raises a legal question over whether the Trump administration can use the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans accused of gang affiliation.
District Judge James Boesberg ruled that the Trump administration needed to halt all deportation flights while the case was in progress. Now, Boesberg is looking into whether the government violated that order.
As the case moves through the courts, media outlets on both the political left and right have framed the story differently, reflecting their ideological leanings.
Media coverage of the deportation flights that took off for El Salvador as a court hearing was being held on Saturday, March 15, has been sharply divided. Left-leaning and right-leaning outlets offer vastly different interpretations of events.
Left-leaning coverage
News outlets considered left-leaning suggested the White House defied the judge and violated the order.
- The New York Times: “A Judge Ordered Deportation Planes to Turn Around. The White House Didn’t Listen.”
- The Washington Post: “Deportation flights landed after judge said planes should turn around”
- The Guardian: “US deports 250 alleged gang members to El Salvador despite court ruling to halt flights”
Right-leaning coverage
Right-leaning news outlets reported that the deportation flights left the U.S. in time before the judge’s order went into effect.
- The Washington Examiner: “Trump administration rushed deportation flights out of US before judge blocked them: Report”
- The Washington Times: “Murder suspect, sex offenders, gun wielders were on deportation flight judge tried to stop: DHS”
- Breitbart: “Marco Rubio and Nayib Bukele celebrate deportations after judge fails to help Tren de Aragua criminals”
Timeline of deportation flights
There is conflicting reporting on whether the deportation flights left before or after the judge’s ruling due to several factors. One key issue is whether planes already over international waters were still subject to the judge’s order to turn back.
Another point of contention is whether the order took effect when the judge issued it verbally or only after it was written. The written order did not contain language ordering flights already departed to return. Understanding the timeline is crucial to assessing these arguments.
- March 15, 5:00 p.m.: Judge James Boasberg holds a hearing.
- March 15, 5:26 p.m.: First deportation flight leaves Harlingen, Texas.
- March 15, 5:45 p.m.: Second deportation flight takes off.
- March 15, 6:45-6:48 p.m.: According to court documents filed by the plaintiffs, Judge Boesberg verbally orders that flights carrying individuals deported under the Alien Enemies Act be returned to the U.S.
“Any plane containing these folks that is going to take off or is in the air needs to be returned to the United States… This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately.”
Judge James Boesberg
- March 15, 7:26 p.m.: Judge’s written order is posted online but does not explicitly mandate returning flights.
- March 15, 7:36 p.m.: First deportation flight arrives in Honduras; third flight departs Texas.
- March 16, 12:10 a.m., 12:18 a.m., 1:08 a.m.: All three flights land in El Salvador.
- March 16, early morning: El Salvador’s President Bukele posts “Oopsie… too late” on X, referencing the judge’s order to stop deportation flights.
The DOJ says that passengers on the third flight were being deported on the basis of Title 8 removal proceedings, which would not be subject to the judge’s order.
In a “notice to the court” filing, Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the administration against the ACLU’s claim that it did not obey the judge’s order.
“Some gang members subject to removal under the Proclamation had already been removed from United States territory under the Proclamation before the issuance of this Court’s second order,” Bondi stated in the filing.
Legal arguments and court proceedings
- The Department of Justice (DOJ) claims deportations occurred before the judge’s order took effect and argues national security concerns prevent full disclosure of flight details.
- The ACLU argues the administration violated the judge’s ruling by stating that individuals were still in U.S. custody until physically handed over abroad.
- Judge Boasberg ordered the Trump administration to provide additional details on flight timing and passenger lists, but the DOJ pushed back, invoking the State Secrets Act to withhold sensitive information.
“The Supreme Court will get involved,” Bondi stated to Fox News on “Sunday Morning Futures.” “This is an out-of-control judge — a federal judge — trying to control our entire foreign policy, and he cannot do it. He’s trying to ask us about national security information, which he is absolutely not entitled to.”
“Why was this law essentially signed in the dark, and these people essentially rushed onto planes?” Judge Boasberg asked. “It seems to be that you only do that if you know it’s a problem and you want to get them out of the country before lawsuits can be filed.”
- Left-leaning networks frame the case as an abuse of presidential power, emphasizing potential violations of human rights and legal norms. Reports highlight the risk of wrongful deportations and what they describe as a disregard for judicial oversight.
“I think it’s a very weak case,” said former ICE legal counsel Veronica Cardenas on left-leaning news outlet MSNBC. “In the end, this is going to come down to checks and balances, and Congress did not speak to this. The president wants to take this unusual power for himself.”
- Right-leaning networks portray the judge’s intervention as judicial overreach, arguing that courts should not interfere in matters of immigration enforcement. Coverage often focuses on the criminal records of deported individuals, supporting the administration’s decision as a necessary crackdown on violent gangs.
“A lot of these judges, in my view, have exceeded their authority including the imposition of national injunctions, and on that, I think the Trump administration has a winning case to make,” stated constitutional lawyer Jonathan Turley on the right-leaning outlet Fox News.