The Trump administration’s March 2025 deportations to El Salvador’s CECOT prison have produced a cluster of federal lawsuits testing whether the government can send people to a foreign prison and then argue the courts have no power to bring them back. The El Salvador deportation lawsuits include a Supreme Court order requiring the return of a Maryland man deported by mistake, a class action finding the Alien Enemies Act removals unlawful, a challenge to third-country deportations, a suit attacking the U.S.–El Salvador agreement itself, and the first individual claim for money damages. Most of the core legal questions remain unresolved as of mid-2026.
Noem v. Abrego Garcia: The Wrongful Deportation Case
Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, a Maryland resident who had lived in the United States since 2012, was arrested without a warrant on March 12, 2025, and placed on a plane to El Salvador three days later. He had no hearing. An immigration judge had granted him “withholding of removal” in 2019, a court order barring his deportation to El Salvador because he faced a credible threat from the Barrio 18 gang. The government later conceded his removal was an “administrative error.”1FactCheck.org. Due Process and the Abrego Garcia Case
On April 4, 2025, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the government to facilitate his return, calling the removal “wholly lawless.” The Supreme Court ruled unanimously on April 10, 2025, in Noem v. Abrego Garcia, upholding the core of that order: the government had to facilitate his release from Salvadoran custody and handle his case as if the wrongful deportation had never happened.2Cornell Law Institute. Noem v. Abrego Garcia1FactCheck.org. Due Process and the Abrego Garcia Case Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, wrote separately that the government’s position implied it “could deport and incarcerate any person, including U.S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene.”3The Conversation. What the Supreme Court’s Ruling Says About Presidential Authority and the Rule of Law
The administration did not move quickly. Judge Xinis said in an April hearing that she had received “nothing” and “no real response,” ordered depositions of officials from ICE, State, and DHS, and warned that failure to comply could bring sanctions.4NBC News. Judge Abrego Garcia Case Indicates Weighing Contempt Proceedings When the government invoked the “state secrets” privilege, she set a 30-minute deadline for a privilege log and warned that noncompliance would be treated as “an intentional refusal to comply.”5Courthouse News Service. Judge Threatens DOJ With Contempt Over Silence in Abrego Garcia Deportation Case His lawyers formally asked her to hold the administration in contempt, calling the defiance “vocal and sustained and flagrant,” and sought a special master to investigate.6CBS News Baltimore. Abrego Garcia’s Lawyers Ask Judge to Fine Trump Administration
Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States on June 6, 2025, after reporting physical abuse in Salvadoran custody.7NILC. Tracking the CECOT Disappearances8Politico. Judge Dismisses Criminal Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia9NPR. Federal Judge Dismisses Criminal Charges Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia The Justice Department has said it will appeal, calling the dismissal “wrong and dangerous.”
The administration then proposed deporting Abrego Garcia to Liberia, Uganda, Eswatini, or Ghana. Judge Xinis blocked those efforts in early 2026, calling the threats “empty” after the government missed a court deadline to produce travel documents.10Courthouse News Service. Judge Bars ICE From Detaining Abrego Garcia, Slams Empty Africa Removal Threats In May 2026 she upheld injunctions barring his re-detention and deportation, criticizing the administration for making “false assertions” about her earlier rulings. Abrego Garcia has agreed to relocate to Costa Rica; the administration has refused to send him. His attorney called the situation a “stalemate.” The government’s appeal is before the Fourth Circuit.11WMAR. Judge Upholds Injunctions Barring Re-Detention and Deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia
J.G.G. v. Trump: The Class Action Over the Alien Enemies Act Flights
The broadest lawsuit is J.G.G. v. Trump, filed the night of March 15, 2025, by the ACLU, Democracy Forward, and the ACLU of D.C. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The flights that day carried roughly 238 to 288 people to El Salvador. The administration invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, a wartime statute unused since World War II, citing a presidential proclamation declaring the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua to be “perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion” against the United States.12Politico. Deport Support Venezuela El Salvador
Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order that night requiring covered planes to turn back. The Justice Department argued the flights were beyond his jurisdiction because the deportees had already left U.S. airspace.13ACLU. Trump’s Deportation Flights Under the Alien Enemies Act On June 4, 2025, Boasberg issued a preliminary injunction ruling that the removal of over 130 Venezuelan men to CECOT was unlawful because they had no constitutionally adequate notice or meaningful chance to contest their gang designations. He called the situation “Kafka-esque.”14ACLU. Federal Court Finds Alien Enemies Act Removals Unlawful
In December 2025 Boasberg certified the deported men as a class and ordered the government to propose a plan giving them access to hearings. The government’s January 2026 response did not offer what the court considered a “meaningful remedy.”15ACLU of D.C. JGG v. Trump — Challenging Unlawful Use of the Alien Enemies Act Boasberg separately found “probable cause” that administration officials committed criminal contempt by violating his March order, but an appeals court paused those contempt proceedings.16NPR. Alien Enemies Act Deportations Case In June 2026 a D.C. Circuit panel stayed the preliminary injunction pending further appeal, leaving the case alive but the injunction suspended.17Courthouse News Service. DC Circuit Freezes Habeas Challenges for Migrants Deported to El Salvador
Federal judges in Texas, Colorado, New York, Pennsylvania, and California have also weighed in, with most finding the administration’s use of the statute flawed. Several noted the United States is not at war with Venezuela and that Tren de Aragua is not an arm of the Venezuelan government. A federal judge in Manhattan remarked that “cows have better treatment now under the law.”18The New York Times. Lawyers Seek Migrant Return
A.A.R.P. v. Trump: The Supreme Court’s Texas Ruling
A separate Supreme Court case, A.A.R.P. v. Trump, came up from the Northern District of Texas. On May 16, 2025, the Court issued an unsigned opinion blocking the administration from removing Venezuelan detainees held in Texas under the Alien Enemies Act until pending appeals were resolved. Notice given roughly 24 hours before removal, “devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights,” was constitutionally inadequate. The Court sent the case to the Fifth Circuit to determine what procedures detainees are entitled to, while emphasizing it was not deciding whether the Act authorizes the removals at all. Justice Alito dissented, joined by Justice Thomas.19SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Again Bars Trump From Removing Venezuelan Nationals20Justia. A.A.R.P. v. Trump
D.V.D. v. DHS: The Third-Country Removals Challenge
D.V.D. v. DHS, filed in March 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, targets the broader policy of sending people to countries other than their home nations without adequate notice. A class of individuals with final removal orders argued that federal law requires the government to first attempt removal to a person’s designated country, and that deportees must have a meaningful chance to raise fears of torture in the destination country.21Immigration Litigation. D.V.D. Updated Alert
The district court issued a preliminary injunction in April 2025. The Supreme Court stayed it in June 2025. On February 25, 2026, the district court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs and set aside the DHS third-country removal policy as “not in accordance with law.” That decision is stayed pending an expedited appeal before the First Circuit, with merits briefing set to be complete by April 2026.21Immigration Litigation. D.V.D. Updated Alert22Supreme Court of the United States. Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D.
RFK Human Rights v. State Department: Suing the Agreement Itself
On June 5, 2025, a coalition of civil rights groups filed Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing that the State Department’s agreement with El Salvador was made without legal authority and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the U.S. Constitution, and treaty obligations including the UN Convention Against Torture.23Courthouse News Service. State Department Faces Lawsuit Over Migrant Detention Agreement With El Salvador24Kennedy Human Rights. RFK Human Rights v. Department of State
The plaintiffs included Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Immigration Equality, and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, represented by Democracy Forward. They characterized the deal as creating “foreign black sites” that let the government “disappear people behind a paywall of impunity.”25Democracy Forward. SV US Agreement Lawsuit Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed in fall 2025. Court records show the case was marked terminated in March 2026, though the docket reflects filings as late as May 2026.26CourtListener. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State
The underlying agreement was structured as a non-binding “arrangement” executed through an exchange of diplomatic notes rather than a formal treaty requiring congressional approval. The U.S. agreed to pay El Salvador roughly $20,000 per detainee for up to 300 people identified as Tren de Aragua members, with El Salvador holding them for one year.27Just Security. US Agreement El Salvador23Courthouse News Service. State Department Faces Lawsuit Over Migrant Detention Agreement With El Salvador
León Rengel v. United States: The First Damages Suit
On March 24, 2026, Neiyerver Adrián León Rengel, 28, filed the first known individual lawsuit for money damages in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeking at least $1.3 million under the Federal Tort Claims Act. He alleged false imprisonment and intentional infliction of emotional distress, claiming he was beaten by guards, denied medical care, and held without contact with his family or legal counsel during four months in CECOT.28CBS News. CECOT Prison Lawsuit Neiyerver Adrian Leon Rengel29Miami Herald. CECOT Prison Lawsuit
León Rengel says he was wrongly identified as a Tren de Aragua member and deported in violation of a court order. DHS disputes his claims and calls him a “confirmed associate” of the gang. He was released from CECOT in July 2025 and now lives in Caracas, Venezuela.30ABC News. Venezuelan Migrant Sues Trump Administration Over Deportation to Notorious CECOT29Miami Herald. CECOT Prison Lawsuit
The Unaccompanied Minors Settlement Case
A separate legal track ran through an existing class-action settlement. A 2019 lawsuit on behalf of unaccompanied minors who entered the U.S. and sought asylum produced a 2024 settlement requiring the government to adjudicate their cases while they remained in the country. Attorneys alleged the Trump administration breached that settlement by deporting a class member identified as “Cristian” to El Salvador on March 15, 2025. On April 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher ordered the government to facilitate Cristian’s return, calling the deportation a “breach of contract,” and issued a temporary restraining order protecting another class member, “Javier,” from removal.31ABC News. Judge Orders Return of 2nd Migrant Deported to El Salvador
Where the Cases Stand
The 252 Venezuelan men held at CECOT were released in July 2025 and returned to their home countries after four months in the prison.32The Guardian. CECOT Human Rights Petition The core legal questions have not been answered. J.G.G. v. Trump continues in the D.C. Circuit with its preliminary injunction stayed. The A.A.R.P. injunction remains in effect while the Fifth Circuit considers the case. D.V.D. v. DHS is awaiting a First Circuit ruling. León Rengel’s damages claim is pending, and Abrego Garcia’s fight against re-deportation is before the Fourth Circuit. Each case probes a different edge of the same question: what happens when the government sends someone beyond the reach of the courts, then argues the courts cannot bring them back.