New: Judge Boasberg Issues Order in TdA Removal Case...Citing Kafka

When a judge starts out his opinion with Kafka, you know you're in for a ride....

This case — J.G.G. v. Trump, involving the removal of Tren de Aragua (TdA) members pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act — has already been a ride-and-a-half. There's a new twist to it, as Judge James Boasberg has now issued a new ruling on the case. And, yes, his opinion begins with Kafka:

One morning, Kafka’s Josef K. awakens to encounter two strange men outside his room.

The case, of course, involves a planeload (or two) of Venezuelans — illegal aliens believed to be TdA members — who were removed from the U.S. by the Trump administration to El Salvador in mid-March. ACLU/Democracy Forward lawyers scrambled before the D.C. District Court on a Saturday to secure a temporary restraining order (TRO), with the case landing before the court's Presiding Judge (Boasberg), who swiftly entered orders essentially demanding the plane be turned around mid-flight. There's been a ton of back and forth since, including a trip to the Supreme Court.

There He Goes Again: Judge Boasberg Finds Probable Cause to Hold Government in Contempt Over AEA Case

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and refined some of their claims. In Wednesday's order, Boasberg granted their motion for a preliminary injunction in part. He also limited class certification solely to:

All noncitizens removed from U.S. custody and transferred to the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) in El Salvador on March 15 and 16, 2025, pursuant solely to the Presidential Proclamation entitled, “Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua”

Excluded from Wednesday's class certification were "all noncitizens in U.S. custody subject to the Proclamation." (The prior certification issued by Boasberg included them.)

In concluding that the injunction was warranted, Boasberg, in his 69-page opinion, stated:

As is now clear, CECOT Class members were entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removability pursuant to the Proclamation. That process — which was improperly withheld — must now be afforded to them. Put differently, Plaintiffs’ ability to bring habeas challenges to their removal must be restored. In light of the well-established law of remedies and the example that has already been set by all three levels of the federal judiciary, then, Defendants must facilitate Plaintiffs’ ability to proceed through habeas and ensure that their cases are handled as they would have been if the Government had not provided constitutionally inadequate process. The Court determines that such a remedy balances Defendants’ distinct role in conducting foreign affairs with the grave need to right their legal wrongs; absent this relief, the Government could snatch anyone off the street, turn him over to a foreign country, and then effectively foreclose any corrective course of action. See Abrego Garcia, 145 S. Ct. at 1019 (statement of Sotomayor, J.). Mindful of national-security and foreign-policy concerns, the Court will not — at least yet — order the Government to take any specific steps. It will instead allow Defendants to submit proposals regarding the appropriate actions that would “allow [Plaintiffs] to actually seek habeas relief.” J.G.G., 145 S. Ct. at 1006.

We know, of course, this isn't the end of the story. The administration may appeal — heck, the plaintiffs may appeal. There will, without question, be another twist to relate and probably before too long. Rest assured that RedState will continue to follow the saga and report on it as warranted.

Editor's Note: Radical leftist judges are doing everything they can to hamstring President Trump's agenda to make America great again.

Help us hold these corrupt judges accountable for their unconstitutional rulings. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.