DOJ Claims No Control Over Deported Venezuelans in El Salvador

DOJ Argues Lack of Control Over Deported Individuals in El Salvador

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has presented a complex argument to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the United States no longer has control over 137 Venezuelan men who were removed to El Salvador. This assertion is central to the government’s challenge against an order that would require their return to the U.S. for due process hearings. The core of the dispute lies in whether a court can compel the government to facilitate the return of individuals it claims it no longer has custody over, especially after their removal to another country.

The case, J.G.G. v. Trump, centers on the men’s designation as members of the Tren de Aragua gang and their subsequent removal in March 2025. This action was taken under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, an emergency statute. The men are seeking to contest these designations and the removals, arguing they were denied a meaningful opportunity to challenge the accusations before being sent to El Salvador.

The Government’s Position on Control and Custody

Justice Department attorney Tiberius Davis informed the D.C. Circuit that the U.S. government does not possess “sole custody” of the 137 Venezuelan men. He explained that the men have since been released from the CECOT prison in El Salvador, and some have reportedly returned to Venezuela. Based on this lack of current control, the DOJ contends that the court cannot issue an order compelling their return to the United States or mandating U.S. hearings. The government’s stance is that the men’s present circumstances abroad make it impossible for the U.S. to provide the requested relief.

Plaintiffs’ Argument for Due Process and Hearings

The Venezuelan men argue that they should have been granted due process hearings to dispute the gang-member designations and the subsequent removals. Their legal challenge focuses on the accuracy of the labels applied to them and their right to contest these classifications. They believe that being removed without a proper opportunity to defend themselves violates their rights. The plaintiffs are seeking a chance to present their case and challenge the basis for their deportation, asserting that a U.S. court should be able to order a remedy even if the individuals are no longer on U.S. soil.

The District Court’s Order and the Appeal

The appeal stems from an order issued in February 2026 by Chief U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg. Judge Boasberg had directed the government to facilitate the return of the men, who had been designated as gang members and removed under the Alien Enemies Act. This district court order aimed to provide a remedy for the men’s claims. The appellate judges are now tasked with determining whether Judge Boasberg’s order was within the court’s authority and whether the government’s argument about its lack of control over the men is a valid reason to dismiss the order. The ruling from this panel will address the core question of the connection between alleged unlawful removals and the government’s current capacity to offer relief.

Related Contempt Proceedings

In addition to the appeal concerning the return order, the same litigation involves a separate contempt proceeding. This matter is scheduled for September 29, 2026, and concerns allegations that executive officials willfully violated a previous temporary restraining order. This earlier order had halted removal flights for some individuals. The contempt case is distinct from the appeal, focusing on whether officials defied a court order, rather than on the men’s right to return or U.S. hearings. The outcome of these appeals could influence how similar cases are handled within the circuit and potentially beyond, as other courts may consider the reasoning applied.

Frequently Asked Questions