Judge DROPS A BOMB – INJUNCTION! 

Judge Brian Murphy is demanding answers from the U.S. government after four Venezuelan men were deported to El Salvador despite a court order requiring safety reviews for non-origin country deportations.

At a Glance 

  • Four Venezuelan men were deported from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador shortly after a court order restricting such removals
  • The Department of Justice claims the Department of Defense conducted the deportations, not Homeland Security
  • Judge Murphy is questioning DOD’s authority to conduct deportations without DHS involvement
  • The judge is considering modifying his injunction to prevent similar removals from Guantanamo Bay
  • A decision on modifying the preliminary injunction is expected by Thursday

Legal Showdown Over Deportation Authority

A federal judge is scrutinizing what appears to be an end-run around his court order after four Venezuelan nationals were deported from Guantanamo Bay to El Salvador. The deportations occurred shortly after Judge Brian Murphy issued a preliminary injunction on March 28 requiring that individuals facing removal must have the opportunity to raise safety concerns before being deported to countries other than their own. 

The Department of Justice has argued that these deportations did not violate the court order because they were conducted by the Department of Defense, not the Department of Homeland Security. 

During a recent hearing, DOJ attorney Jonathan Guynn attempted to distance DHS from the controversial deportations. “DHS was not on the flight,” Guynn stated in court, suggesting that because the Department of Defense conducted the removals and is not a defendant in the case, no violation of the injunction occurred. This legal maneuver has raised serious questions about which federal agencies have deportation authority and whether the government can use different departments to circumvent court orders. 

Questions of Agency Authority and Coordination

Judge Murphy expressed skepticism about the government’s position, directly questioning what legal authority the Department of Defense has to conduct deportations without DHS involvement. The judge has ordered officials to provide complete details about the deportations, including the names of the deported individuals and flight information from Guantanamo Bay. He also requested a joint discovery plan to explore the relationship between DHS and DOD, their respective roles in removal operations, and any memoranda of understanding between the agencies. 

Attorney Trina Realmuto, representing the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, contested the DOJ’s argument by pointing to previous DHS statements about custody and “logistical support” at Guantanamo Bay. Realmuto argued that the government cannot bypass the court’s order simply by using another agency to carry out deportations. She has requested that Judge Murphy modify the injunction to explicitly include those detained at Guantanamo and to order the return of the four Venezuelan men who were deported to El Salvador.

Potential Expansion of Court Oversight

Judge Murphy indicated that more “factual development” is needed regarding what notice was given to the men before their deportation and the exact relationship between DHS and DOD in handling such removals. The case has highlighted significant gaps in judicial oversight of inter-agency deportation procedures, especially concerning detainees at Guantanamo Bay. The judge is now considering expanding his original injunction to establish clearer protocols for handling deportations and to prevent similar situations from occurring in the future.

The case has broader implications for immigration enforcement and national security operations. The Trump administration had previously used the Alien Enemies Act to justify the deportation, labeling the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua as a “hybrid criminal state” invading the United States. This security-based justification adds another layer of complexity to the legal questions surrounding the government’s deportation authority and the proper balance between immigration enforcement, national security concerns, and due process rights.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR