The lawsuit over El Salvador’s CECOT prison deal is Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. U.S. Department of State, filed on June 5, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by a coalition of civil rights and legal organizations seeking to void the agreement under which the United States pays El Salvador to detain deportees at the Centro de Confinamiento del Terrorismo. Chief Judge James E. Boasberg dismissed the case on March 25, 2026, on standing grounds, and the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration remains pending.1Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. RFK Human Rights v. DOS Detention El Salvador CECOT
Who Sued and What They Argued
Five organizations brought the case: Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, the Immigrant Defenders Law Center, Immigration Equality, and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice. Democracy Forward served as lead counsel.2Democracy Forward. SV US Agreement Lawsuit3Courthouse News Service. State Department Faces Lawsuit Over Migrant Detention Agreement With El Salvador
The complaint argued that the State Department entered into the arrangement without legal authority. It alleged violations of the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel, and the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The plaintiffs also claimed the agreement violated the Administrative Procedure Act, bypassed U.S. immigration law and federal procurement regulations, and breached the United Nations Convention Against Torture.4Immigration Equality. Suit Challenges Trump Administrations Black Site Agreement With El Salvador to Disappear People
Democracy Forward president Skye Perryman called the arrangement an “abuse of power typical of autocratic regimes” and said the administration was using it to “disappear people behind a paywall of impunity” by placing them “beyond the reach of U.S. law.”5Democracy Forward. First of Its Kind Lawsuit Challenges US El Salvador Agreement to Disappear People The plaintiffs described CECOT as a “tropical gulag” where detainees were held incommunicado, denied access to lawyers, family, and medical care.4Immigration Equality. Suit Challenges Trump Administrations Black Site Agreement With El Salvador to Disappear People
Standing was pressed through injuries to the organizations themselves. The NACDL argued that the agreement materially interfered with its members’ ability to represent clients. Defense attorneys reported that routine legal matters ballooned from a few hours to forty because of the unpredictability created by the rendition program, and one member assigned to a client sent to CECOT was unable to make any contact at all, which the organization characterized as a direct impediment to providing constitutionally adequate counsel.6Democracy Forward. RFK Human Rights v. Department of State – Filing
The Agreement Being Challenged
Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced in February 2025 that the United States had reached a deal with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele to accept and detain deportees at CECOT regardless of nationality. The formal arrangement was established through an exchange of diplomatic notes around March 13–14, 2025, with Rubio’s office and El Salvador’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs each issuing corresponding memos.7Just Security. US Agreement El Salvador
Under the deal, El Salvador agreed to receive up to 300 individuals the U.S. alleged were members of Tren de Aragua, a Venezuelan criminal organization, and to house them for one year while the U.S. decided on their long-term disposition. The U.S. proposed paying approximately $20,000 per detainee.7Just Security. US Agreement El Salvador In total, approximately $6 million was paid to El Salvador for the detention of roughly 300 Venezuelan and Salvadoran nationals, with an additional $15 million in law enforcement funds reportedly set aside for the program.8KQED. What US Taxpayers Getting 6 Million Deal Salvadoran Mega Prison
Transfers began on March 15, 2025, when the Trump administration invoked the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport 238 Venezuelan men to CECOT. Another 17 were sent on March 30.9Amnesty International UK. Urgent Action Outcome: Men Expelled to El Salvador Repatriated The administration characterized all deportees as dangerous gang members, but a CBS News “60 Minutes” report could not find a criminal record for 75 percent of the 238 men, and a Bloomberg examination found roughly 90 percent had no U.S. criminal record.10WOLA. Weekly US-Mexico Border Update: Supreme Court El Salvador Renditions Mass Deportation
The State Department’s own 2023 human rights report on El Salvador documented severe overcrowding at Salvadoran prisons, systemic abuse by guards, and deaths in custody from violence and medical neglect, and noted that human rights organizations were denied access to facilities.11U.S. Department of State. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices: El Salvador
Why Judge Boasberg Dismissed the Case
The government moved to dismiss, arguing the plaintiffs lacked standing and that the diplomatic arrangement was not “final agency action” reviewable under the Administrative Procedure Act. On March 25, 2026, Judge Boasberg granted the motion and denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion for summary judgment.
The court found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated “injury in fact and causation” but ruled they failed on the redressability prong of standing. The agreement, in the court’s view, was a “nonbinding diplomatic instrument” with no independent legal force, so a court order setting it aside would not necessarily change what the government was doing. The case was dismissed without prejudice.1Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. RFK Human Rights v. DOS Detention El Salvador CECOT
The government has also told the court the underlying agreement has no termination date.1Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. RFK Human Rights v. DOS Detention El Salvador CECOT
What Happens Next
The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration on April 22, 2026. The government responded on May 6, and the plaintiffs replied on May 13. As of mid-2026, the motion remains pending.12CourtListener. Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights v. Department of State
Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the coalition is not barred from returning to court with a reworked complaint if the reconsideration motion fails.1Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. RFK Human Rights v. DOS Detention El Salvador CECOT
Separately, on July 18, 2025, the 252 Venezuelan nationals then held at CECOT were flown to Caracas as part of a three-way arrangement among the United States, El Salvador, and Venezuela. Bukele indicated the deal included the release of all U.S. nationals held in Venezuela.13BBC. Inside Trumps Deportee Deal With El Salvador That transfer resolved the situation of the specific detainees whose treatment prompted the suit, but it did not disturb the underlying U.S.-El Salvador arrangement, which is what the RFK Human Rights plaintiffs continue to target.
Related Cases That Are Often Confused With This One
Several other lawsuits arising from the same March 2025 deportation flights are frequently discussed alongside the RFK Human Rights case, but they are legally distinct.
Trump v. J.G.G. was a class action by Venezuelan detainees challenging their removal under the Alien Enemies Act. On April 7, 2025, the Supreme Court ruled per curiam that such challenges must be brought through habeas corpus in the district of confinement rather than through APA litigation in Washington, D.C., and vacated Judge Boasberg’s earlier temporary restraining orders on venue grounds. All nine justices agreed that judicial review of these removals is available; Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan, Jackson, and in part by Barrett, dissented from the Court’s decision to intervene on the emergency docket.14Supreme Court of the United States. Trump v. J.G.G.
The contempt proceedings were a separate track. Judge Boasberg found probable cause for criminal contempt against the administration for continuing deportation flights after his March 2025 restraining orders. On April 14, 2026, a split D.C. Circuit panel issued a writ of mandamus ordering him to end the inquiry, with Judges Neomi Rao and Justin Walker holding that the investigation was an “abuse of discretion” that improperly probed high-level executive deliberations. Judge Michelle Childs dissented at length, arguing the ruling stripped federal courts of their power to enforce their own orders. The ACLU indicated it would seek review by the full D.C. Circuit.15Politico. James Boasberg Contempt Deportations Ruling16Courthouse News Service. Judge Ordered to End Contempt Probe Over Deportation Flights
The Kilmar Abrego Garcia case involves a Salvadoran man deported to CECOT on March 15, 2025, despite a 2019 immigration order barring his removal to El Salvador. The government later called the removal an “administrative error.” A unanimous Supreme Court in April 2025 upheld a district court order that the government “facilitate” his return while vacating a deadline and sending the case back for further proceedings.17Supreme Court of the United States. Noem v. Abrego Garcia18Politico. Kilmar Abrego Garcia Ruling19Politico. Judge Dismisses Criminal Case Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia20NPR. Federal Judge Dismisses Criminal Charges Against Kilmar Abrego Garcia
None of those rulings addresses the legality of the U.S.-El Salvador agreement itself. That question is what the RFK Human Rights suit was designed to reach, and it is the question the March 2026 dismissal left unresolved.