US judge orders return of deported Venezuelans to sue Trump administration

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to allow a group of Venezuelans deported to a prison in El Salvador to return to the United States to pursue their legal cases.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ruled that the government must facilitate and pay for the travel costs of the deportees. The ruling applies to individuals who were expelled under the Alien Enemies Act and are currently living outside of Venezuela.

The decision follows the deportation of more than 250 Venezuelans to the Cecot prison in El Salvador last March. Those deportations were carried out despite a standing court order intended to prevent them.

Luis Muñoz Pinto, one of the individuals affected by the ruling, said he wants to return to the U.S. to prove he is not a gang member. However, he expressed concerns about the possibility of being detained again upon his return.

The White House criticized Boasberg’s decision, calling it "absurd" and labeling the judge a "far-left judicial activist."

Government lawyers had previously argued in court that bringing the deportees back to the U.S. would harm the country's foreign policy interests.

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg’s recent ruling serves as a critical judicial check on executive overreach, specifically targeting the Trump administration’s aggressive expansion of immigration enforcement. The administration’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act—a 1798 statute rarely utilized since World War II—to justify mass deportations by labeling gang activity a foreign "invasion" represents a radical legal maneuver. Boasberg’s decision directly challenges both the legitimacy and the foundational logic of that strategy.

However, the ruling’s practical impact is likely to remain narrow. As the judge himself acknowledged, the number of individuals willing to return to the United States under these conditions is expected to be negligible, if not zero. The prospect of immediate detention upon arrival remains a formidable deterrent, transforming a significant legal victory into a prohibitively high-risk option for those affected.

The case underscores a deepening confrontation between two competing American doctrines: a commitment to constitutional due process and the rule of law, championed by the judiciary and the ACLU, versus an executive priority of absolute border control and national security at any cost. The White House’s sharp response—which included personal attacks on the judge—highlights a broader strategy to politicize the judiciary and frame legal disputes as ideological warfare. Ultimately, the ruling also brings into focus the external costs of U.S. immigration policy, demonstrating how domestic enforcement measures can exacerbate human rights crises abroad, specifically within El Salvador’s notorious prison system.

While this incident has no direct legal or policy impact on the Vietnamese-American community, the story of asylum seekers navigating a harsh immigration system and facing baseless accusations resonates deeply. For many, particularly within the refugee generation in hubs like Little Saigon, these narratives stir historical memories and echo the lived experiences of the Vietnamese exodus and our own journey of resettlement in the United States.